[Superfedz]

I am a painting contractor. I was painting a kitchen for some wealthy people. They claimed I broke a light fixture valued at $450. The light had a horseshoe shaped crack that looked like a heat crack. The homeowner insisted that I broke the light. I know I did not. However, I felt that the final payment would be withheld if I didn't submit it to my ins, so I submitted the claim.

Days later, I got into a dispute with the customer and walked off the job without finishing. When I got the call from the ins adjuster, I made it clear, that I did not break the light so she denied the claim.

Months later, (this week), I got a notice that I am being sued for breaking the light.

Question: The fact that I submitted a claim to the ins co, does that now make me liable for damages, even though I did not break the light? Will a judge rule against me or do the Plaintiff's have to prove that I broke the light?

BTW - they did not see me break the light and there is no proof that I broke the light.

Thanks~

[ScottGem]

They will use the fact that you agreed to submit it to your insurer as an admission. They will say that you withdrew the claim only after you got into a dispute with them.

They stand a good chance of winning.

[Superfedz]

Here is a photo of the light. This is after I tried to take the bulb out. The glass popped out. To me, it looks like a heat break.

I filed a counter lawsuit.

[ScottGem]

On what grounds?

[Superfedz]

I removed name of parties.

Complaint

1. On September 10, 2013, company commenced an interior painting project at the home of customer of ***, NJ. As several working days progressed, customer brought to the Plaintiff’s attention, a crack she had found in one of the kitchen light fixtures.
2. Shortly thereafter, Defendants wrongfully accused Plaintiff, of breaking said kitchen light fixture (which was possibly caused by a manufacturer defect and/ or an improper wattage bulb), valued at $445.00.
3. Defendants then unjustifiably held company financially liable for damages to said light fixture, forcing company to terminate contractual agreements with Defendants and vacate their property.
4. Defendants unlawfully confiscated equipment owned by *** Painting, and Plaintiff required a police escort back to the customers residents, to have said equipment returned.
5. As a result, Plaintiff suffered loss of monies due to non-refundable paint purchased, loss of earned and future income.
6. Plaintiff worked (5) five consecutive business days at the home of the Defendants, successfully completing a substantial portion of a (7) seven day painting project, furnishing labor, all material, supplies and paints.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the sum of;
$331.88 for all completed work, paints and supplies, with the addition of,
$543.12 for gas / mileage, and all loss of time and income caused by the Defendants, totaling the remaining balance of the contract.

[excon]

Hello S:

File a counterclaim for the paint job you didn't get paid for.

excon

[AK lawyer]

They will use the fact that you agreed to submit it to your insurer as an admission. They will say that you withdrew the claim only after you got into a dispute with them.

They stand a good chance of winning.

I don't know. If the customer is making noises to the effect that the contractor did something negligent, it is perfectly reasonable to notify one's insurance carrier, in effect saying "Be aware that they think I am liable." In fact that's what you are supposed to do.

Excon, it appears that post #5 contains the quoted counter-claim (although it is entitled "Complaint").

[Superfedz]

They also gave me a bad review on Angies List, and oddly, the review was removed. The review was done Oct 29, 2013 Take note, she never mentioned the light in the review at that time. Here is a screen Capture from November.

[ScottGem]

I don't know either. I do think your counter suit has merit, because it contains provable items. I assume you have a police report and pictures of the completed work.

I stand on what I said initially, but a lot will depend on what you told your insurance carrier initially as AK said. I'm not an expert on electricity, so I'm going to ask some of our electrical experts to take a look at this. But the fact that only the inner cover was damaged seems to work in your favor.

[smearcase]

He indicated he was trying to remove the bulb, and the picture indicates breakage (not a crack) consistent with a hand inserted into the globe, and possibly a break while trying to turn the bulb.
It is quite possible that a new globe could be purchased if this is really a $450 lighting fixture, mitigating the damage greatly.
I would not have attempted to remove the fixture for painting certainy. It could have been covered temporarily if splatter was a concern and any painter worth his salt could trim (using painter's tape if felt necessary) around the ceiling cover plate without getting paint on the cover plate, and it could easily be cleaned off the plate even with a mistake.
There are some claims that cfl bulbs produce 75% less heat, so if you are going to assert that the damage was caused by heat from that cfl bulb, be prepared to prove that the bulb was far in excess of the manufacturer's recommendation.

[ScottGem]

He indicated he was trying to remove the bulb,

I don't see where that was indicated.

I also noticed the cfl bulb, which is supposed to generate less heat from the lighting element. But the base does generate heat.

[stanfortyman]

Unless they previously had a very high wattage incandescent lamp in there for a long time I seriously doubt it is heat damage. At the same time I have seen breaks like that for no reason at all.
Honestly it is anyone's guess how it broke. If I had to guess I'd say it was the customer trying to get a freebie. Especially considering they are actually suing you over such a minor issue.

[Superfedz]

He indicated he was trying to remove the bulb, and the picture indicates breakage (not a crack) consistent with a hand inserted into the globe, and possibly a break while trying to turn the bulb.
It is quite possible that a new globe could be purchased if this is really a $450 lighting fixture, mitigating the damage greatly.
I would not have attempted to remove the fixture for painting certainy. It could have been covered temporarily if splatter was a concern and any painter worth his salt could trim (using painter's tape if felt necessary) around the ceiling cover plate without getting paint on the cover plate, and it could easily be cleaned off the plate even with a mistake.
There are some claims that cfl bulbs produce 75% less heat, so if you are going to assert that the damage was caused by heat from that cfl bulb, be prepared to prove that the bulb was far in excess of the manufacturer's recommendation.

I didn't take the light down, I painted around the top. 33 years as a painter (it's cake). I only tried to remove the bulb after the fact. I wanted to see if the bulb was the wrong wattage, and if that was the explanation for the crack.

The globe was very hot, I felt it.

Why do I need to prove that I didn't break it? Don't they have to prove that I did?

[ScottGem]

In small claims court things are looser. Since neither of you have definitive proof either way, other factors will be used to determine who wins.

[Superfedz]

In small claims court things are looser. Since neither of you have definitive proof either way, other factors will be used to determine who wins.

I have been a tradesmen for 33 years. When I look at how the light cracked, common sense tells me it was heat. A break due to banging into it - would be jagged.

Again, why do I need to prove I didn't break it? The home owner didn't see me break it.

[ScottGem]

And, again, you were working around the light, it broke. The "judge" will weigh all the evidence and rule based on that. This is not a criminal case where the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" applies. It's a civil case where the doctrine of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply. So the evidence is presented and reviewed. The judge rules based on the preponderance of evidence, some of which could be circumstantial. There does not have to absolute proof one way or the other.

[AK lawyer]

I didn't take the light down, I painted around the top. 33 years as a painter (it's cake). I only tried to remove the bulb after the fact. I wanted to see if the bulb was the wrong wattage, and if that was the explanation for the crack.

The globe was very hot, I felt it.

Why do I need to prove that I didn't break it? Don't they have to prove that I did?

They have to prove that it is more likely than not that you broke it.

You had no business touching it. If you had left it alone you would have a better case telling the judge that you had nothing to do with it.

Your story is remniscent of the murder film cliche:

• suspect finds body with a knife next to it.
• Suspect picks up knife.
• Someone comes in room and sees suspect holding knife.
• Suspect is assumed to be the murderer.

Next time, leave murder weapons and broken light fixtures untouched.

[smearcase]

Scott,
Post #3: "Here is a photo of the light. This is after I tried to take the bulb out. The glass popped out. To me, it looks like a heat break. "

Post #13: " I only tried to remove the bulb after the fact. I wanted to see if the bulb was the wrong wattage, and if that was the explanation for the crack."

Superfedz,
You didn't need to touch the light fixture. You saw that the globe was cracked, so you decided to investigate the cause of the crack. and the cracked portion fell out when you stuck your hand up through the globe.
Maybe the judge will believe that these wealthy folks set all this up with the intent of getting a new light fixture out of the painters via a lawsuit. Good Luck.

[Superfedz]

Scott,
Post #3: "Here is a photo of the light. This is after I tried to take the bulb out. The glass popped out. To me, it looks like a heat break. "

Post #13: " I only tried to remove the bulb after the fact. I wanted to see if the bulb was the wrong wattage, and if that was the explanation for the crack."

Superfedz,
You didn't need to touch the light fixture. You saw that the globe was cracked, so you decided to investigate the cause of the crack. and the cracked portion fell out when you stuck your hand up through the globe.
Maybe the judge will believe that these wealthy folks set all this up with the intent of getting a new light fixture out of the painters via a lawsuit. Good Luck.

You need more info...

Sept 13th 11am wife discovers crack, Sept 13th 7pm, husband calls me via phone, and is being accusatory, Monday the 16th, I go to their house to work, at 9am I call my ins co. claim is submitted, I was told that adjuster will call me in a few days to ask questions. So at this point, I figure, I want to see if the bulb is the proper wattage (home owner is not at home, so I try to get the bulb out, glass pops out. I work till the end of the day and say bye to the women of the house. Everything was fine...
Next day her and I get into confrontation, I am still disturbed by this whole matter, I tell her, "look, I am not finishing this job, lets call it even". I pack up and leave... 3 months later, I am being sued...

[AK lawyer]

You need more info...
...

No, the further information you gave doesn't add anything of substance.

The wife discovered the crack. You touched the light in an effort to discover the cause of the breakage. Again, it was none of your business. The only legitimate reason to touch it would have been to prove that whatever you may have done was not your fault. And that should been have done by your adjuster, not you.