[JudyKayTee]

The max, depending on where you live is, at MOST, $5,000.

Actually it's $10,000 in some jurisdictions - being discussed in a lot of States.

[AK lawyer]

Actually it's $10,000 in some jurisdictions - being discussed in a lot of States.

$30,000 here.

[excon]

Hello again,

I got to get out more.

excon

[rlathery]

Hello again, r:

Nobody is gonna get a lawyer... You're not, and he's not... For $13k, it's not worth it. The only alternative he's got is small claims court... The max, depending on where you live is, at MOST, $5,000. And, even then he has to PROVE it was you.. You don't have to prove it wasn't. A report from an insurance adjuster who HAS a financial interest in the matter is NOT going to be good evidence against you...

Now, I dunno what you wanna do.. We haven't even talked about your future living arrangements.. If you don't pay, and you're not going to, then you're going to be evicted. So, trying to maintain good relations with your landlord so that you can stay, isn't going to work...

Plus, we haven't even talked about the very real possibility that your 2 year old DID do what they said...

So, maybe you should make him an offer. Certainly, he's going to come to the same conclusion about district court vs small claims. Maybe he wants to save you as a tenant.. Maybe you want to stay. I don't know.

So, fill us in again. We're here.

excon

In my statement the insurance adjuster said "they claimed it was clogged." They as in management of the apartment. I followed up with something like. "It was possible my son caused it as he wakes up at night to potty." followed with IA- "in the lease it says you are responsible for clogs," my response, "I dont have a copy of my lease," followed with IA- "I will mail it"

As soon as I realized what I said I immediately smack my head, because I realize I gave him exactly what he wanted, but I'm not a liar. Had they of investigated the toilet and found something obstructing the flow, I would have shelled out the cash some way, but they didn't and when my husband came home from work he did. And we found something, but it wasn't a toy or a pacifier, it was part of a shot class. I'm not lying I drink, but not liqure, usually cheap wine. But my husband said it was small and was caught in the foundation of the toilet, wasn't enough to flood the entire hallway and that it was most likely a mechanical problem.

And as far as moving, they can evict me... I really don't care. After this mess I will be running for the hills when my lease is up! Which will be December. But if they evict... which fingers crossed I HOPE THEY DO, I will gladly pack my stuff pronto and hold my NOT guilty head high!

As far as why my son wakes up in the middle of the night, is because my husband works grave yard shift, its not uncommon for my little one to wake up, but my husband assured me after my conversation with IA, that our son did not use the potty unsupervised and that when he went back to bed, he put the gate up! But if maintenance had pulled up that toilet, they would have had something, instead they have nothing, but a bunch of shallow accusations. After all your replies, you guys are building my expectations. AND THERE WILL BE NO NEGOTIATIONS. Because they have nothing, unless its planted... is that possible?lol I mean do people even do that?

[rlathery]

Hello again,

I gotta get out more.

excon

I talked with an lawyer, who says there is no case, it's a waste, but that I will eventually get sued. Because they think they have a case. So... we will see

[AK lawyer]

... It states[I] "Our investigation finds you liable for our insured's damages unther the theory of negligence. You had a duty to verfiy the toilet stopper working and breach this duty, by failing to do so."...

So their theory does not seem to be that your son flushed something down the toilet that blocked it (for which you might he held negligent for failure to properly supervise), but rather that when it was blocked somehow you failed to pay attention and notice that water was flowing all over the place.

[rlathery]

So their theory does not seem to be that your son flushed something down the toilet that blocked it (for which you might he held negligent for failure to properly supervise), but rather that when it was blocked somehow you failed to pay attention and notice that water was flowing all over the place.

Yes.


My conversation with my lawyer. He informed me that Travelers Insurance Adjuster should never of came after me to begin with. Because if it was negligence of mine, the insurance should have never covered it. The Land Lord should be the one trying to collect. But that more than likely the Land Lord told them it wasn't my fault or there's, and they covered it unknowlingly and now Travelers wants there 13K back, but its to late they have already wrote the check, the checks been cashed and la de da, they want it from me. I'm not paying because. My son didn't put anything in the toilet to obstruct the flow, I didn't know the water had flooded the basement apartment, because I wasn't home and it's Travelers stupid fault for not further investigating the claim. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it insurance fraud if my land lord knew that the IA was going to come after me for the $

[JudyKayTee]

Yes.


My conversation with my lawyer. He informed me that Travelers Insurance Adjuster should never of came after me to begin with. Because if it was negligence of mine, the insurance should of never covered it. The Land Lord should be the one trying to collect. But that more than likely the Land Lord told them it wasn't my fault or there's, and they covered it unknowlingly and now Travelers wants there 13K back, but its to late they have already wrote the check, the checks been cashed and la de da, they want it from me. I'm not paying because. My son didn't put anything in the toilet to obstruct the flow, I didn't know the water had flooded the basement apartment, because I wasn't home and it's Travelers stupid fault for not further investigating the claim. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it insurance fraud if my land lord knew that the IA was going to come after me for the $

I don't understand the drastic change in your writing style.

At any rate, no, it's not Travelers "stupid fault" for not investigating. It appears Travelers did investigate. Perhaps they came to the wrong conclusion, perhaps not.

No, it's not insurance fraud if your landlord "knew" that the IA (and I assume you mean the insurance adjuster. The adjuster did not "come after you." He represents the company which is seeking to be repaid. If you want to use the "come after you" phrase, it's Travelers that's collecting, not the "IA"). If you can prove that your landlord lied, well, then it's different.

What basement apartment? This is the first time I've read anything about a basement apartment - what did I miss?

And, once again (to quote myself) "Your own language is damning you - 'damages, I APPARENTLY CAUSED'!

La de da or not, I don't think it's over.

[rlathery]

What basement apartment? This is the first time I've read anything about a basement apartment - what did I miss?

And, once again (to quote myself) "Your own language is damning you - 'damages, I APPARENTLY CAUSED'!

La de da or not, I don't think it's over.

This is where I stated the basement apartment. I live in a quad.

2 out of 2 floors and no clog was found, because the toilet wasn't inspected and this is because they are sorry. And no none of my stuff was damaged! Only the property!

And when I say Apparently, I Mean that's the conclusion they have brought forth. Ultimately they should have investigated the claim before paying. Its not against the law, they can try and claim, but they can't force me.

1.) I contacted a plumber- who states that toilet are not complex, but are known to heal themselves. And that more than a clog could have flooded the apartment, but it would have to be a mechanical problem in the back, because though it was clogged, the water would certainly of stopped, unless there was an inssue with the backing of the toilet.

2.) Next, many things could be considered insurance fruad, but the first letter I ever received was already damning me as responsible. And while I know its travelers who is trying to collect, it's IA that is trying to manipulate me and twist my arm.

3.) My confidence is what has changed. I would be more than willing to negotiate, had I have been given an opportunity to do the following.
a.) Hire an unbiased person, to ensure that we we're in fact in charge of the damages that were done. Instead of having, an insurance adjuster blame me for damages, who lives half way across the world.
b.) An opportunity to hire a public adjuster to survey the damages to determine if 13K was an adquate number for the damages in question.
c.) Pictures taken of the property before they ripped everything out. Because I have no idea, what the placed looked like before, yes it is Identical to my apartment, but I don't know what the propety looked like before, and I could possibly have to pay for damages that we're not in fact caused by the flood!
d.) And how in the subrogation packet I was given a detailed list of the things that would be done, and the demensions. How they said that they we're going to remove flooring, appliances, and so on. I live right next door, I watched them as they fixed it in one day. I never saw them leave with flooring.

Alas I finish with, I am being taken advantage of. I feel like that kid in high school who was really smart and did everyone's homework, because they bullied me. And I don't want to pay 13K. In fact everything he showing me, is all Theoretical. Those are his words, and he so cleverly wants to use mine against me, I will use his against mine. He has a theory and the theory is... "He 2 year old son, woke up at night and the used the toilet unattended and stuck toys in the toilet or whatever. And when I woke that morning to go to the park and gym. I just stepped over it. When in reality I don't even know if it flooded at night, it wasn't until 2pm that I realized the damages. My point is, how can I verify anything, if I didn't know and I wasn't there? You don't have to answer that, points is... some evidence and opportunity to be treated fairly would be nice. Instead right away I am the cause of damages, So they say. Not my opinion at all!

[JudyKayTee]

This is where I stated the basement apartment. I live in a quad.



And when I say Apparently, I Mean thats the conclusion they have brought forth. Ultimately they should have investigated the claim before paying. Its not against the law, they can try and claim, but they can't force me.

1.) I contacted a plumber- who states that toilet are not complex, but are known to heal themselves. And that more than a clog could of flooded the apartment, but it would have to be a mechanical problem in the back, because though it was clogged, the water would certainly of stopped, unless there was an inssue with the backing of the toilet.

2.) Next, many things could be considered insurance fruad, but the first letter I ever recieved was already damning me as responsible. And while I know its travelers who is trying to collect, it's IA that is trying to manipulate me and twist my arm.

3.) My confidence is what has changed. I would be more than willing to negotiate, had I have been given an oppotunity to do the following.
a.) Hire an unbiased person, to ensure that we we're infact in charge of the damages that were done. Instead of having, an insurance adjuster blame me for damages, who lives half way across the world.
b.) An oppotunity to hire a public adjuster to survey the damages to determine if 13K was an adquate number for the damages in question.
c.) Pictures taken of the property before they ripped everything out. Because I have no idea, what the placed looked like before, yes it is Identical to my apartment, but I don't know what the propety looked like before, and I could possibly have to pay for damages that we're not infact caused by the flood!
d.) And how in the subrogation packet I was given a detailed list of the things that would be done, and the demensions. How they said that they we're going to remove flooring, appliances, and so on. I live right next door, I watched them as they fixed it in one day. I never saw them leave with flooring.

Alas I finish with, I am being taken advantage of. I feel like that kid in high school who was really smart and did everyones homework, because they bullied me. And I don't want to pay 13K. In fact everything he showing me, is all Theoretical. Those are his words, and he so cleverly wants to use mine against me, I will use his against mine. He has a theory and the theory is..."He 2 year old son, woke up at night and the used the toilet unattended and stuck toys in the toilet or whatever. And when I woke that morning to go to the park and gym. I just stepped over it. When in reality I don't even know if it flooded at night, it wasn't until 2pm that I realized the damages. My point is, how can I verify anything, if I didn't know and I wasn't there? You dont have to answer that, points is...some evidence and oppotunity to be treated fairly would be nice. Instead right away I am the cause of damages, So they say. Not my opinion at all!

I'm an investigator. That's what I do for a living.

You can argue from your side all you want. It's not going to change the outcome. They can try "and" claim, but they can't force you to pay?

What law says that?

I also think if Travelers reads any of this your fate is pretty much sealed.

WHY would you mention the company by name?

[rlathery]

The law that states I am innocent until proven guilty. Bottom line they do not have any evidence he told me that!

[JudyKayTee]

The law that states I am innocent until proven guilty. Bottom line they do not have any evidence he told me that!

I thought this was a civil case. Where are you reading that in a civil case you are innocent until proven guilty? Or have you been charged criminally?

Or is this just something you "know?"

Different burdens of proof - but I'm sure you know that. And all Travelers has against you is your words.

And your words concern me. For example, "This man isn't going to garnish my wages without some damn evidence!" I thought you were a one-income family.

And then you said to the Adjuster - "I didn't know if something obstructed the flow, he was two, and that I couldn't exactly ask." My comment? This should have been you knew; he didn't do it.

"I'm certain all I said I was uncertain ..." but that isn't what you said. You didn't say you were uncertain. You said you "didn't know."

"also he can't record me without telling me, or he did it without my knowledge because he didn't inform me." Yes, he can. What State? I also guarantee that your statement was recorded. Excon was right - I guarantee it was. The adjuster is NOT an independent. He works for Travelers.

"Shouldn't I be present, shouldn't I have a right to hire someone to survey the damages, I apparently caused ..." You apparently caused? Maybe you did say more than you "don't know."

No one here is trying to make things worse than they are... but you are coming out of left field here for absolutely no reason and don't even realizing you are arguing against yourself based on very faulty "legal" knowledge.

I do investigations for a living - Professionally I would be all over you.

[rlathery]

Thankfully you are not my investigator, and I have received a letter in the mail stating. The claim is closed and I will not be held accountable for anything. He said he didn't have anything to prove we caused and that this would be too much trouble to try and prove in court. So I am glad its over with. However, you are not a Lawyer. I accepted advice from a lawyer, who said that this would be far to difficult to prove anyone was the cause of damages, as a specialist and unbiased person wasn't hired to survey damages and basically its he said she said. I do not get up with my son at night, my husband does. I think someone is reading and criticizing what suits them. We are a one income family, if he garnishes my husbands wages, well that would be the same as garnishing mine. And I continue to state that APPARENTLY, is based on his assumption. And Thank you so much for your opinion, but my supposed "Left field" approach solved this case. I appreciate your devil's advocate approach and, I like that you are challenging me, but I can't be certain of anything, just as they can't be anything. Had they followed an appropriate chain of commands I'm certain I would be in trouble. But even IA has said "It's he said, she said." and that's just to hard to prove.

[rlathery]

No one here is trying to make things worse than they are ... but you are coming out of left field here for absolutely no reason and don't even realizing you are arguing against yourself based on very faulty "legal" knowledge.

I do investigations for a living - Professionally I would be all over you.

It does however feel like you are trying to make things worse. Clear advice would be greta. Like when you call, don't say this. Instead you seem very determined to make me feel uneasy. However, when giving advice, try to be a little understanding. Ask yourself what you would do in such a situation as this. What advice can you give. Instead you seem very determined to prove me at fault, you are no better than IA. At least IA, was willing to move on with a case that has no evidence, you however no!

[JudyKayTee]

It does however feel like you are trying to make things worse. Clear advice would be greta. Like when you call, don't say this. Instead you seem very determined to make me feel uneasy. However, when giving advice, try to be a little understanding. Ask yourself what you would do in such a situation as this. What advice can you give. Instead you seem very determined to prove me at fault, you are no better than IA. At least IA, was willing to move on with a case that has no evidence, you however no!

You can insult me all you want - you made some serious mistakes. Be grateful that Travelers is so understanding and, apparently, can afford to pay the claim.

You continue to "quote" the law - including guilty until proven innocent and you are totally incorrect! And garnishing your husband's wages is NOT the same as garnishing yours.

I have no idea what " IA, was willing to move on with a case that has no evidence, you however no."

At any rate I'm glad for you that it's over.

How soon do you expect to be evicted?