- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So a water main breaks and floods your house. Should city be responsible?
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:26 am to wickowick
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:26 am to wickowick
quote:
wickowick
quote:
Each state is different...
isn't LA's rule such that i am not responsible for my tree hitting my neighbor's house unless they have served me with some sort of proper notice?
1
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:28 am to GeeOH
quote:
I'm sure it failed at a joint
Most definitely. Winter time in Boulder, ground is frozen, begins to shrink, temperatures begin to rise, ground warms and expands. Boom. Water main break.
I'd have found the isolation valve and shut that fricker off myself.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:32 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
I'd have found the isolation valve and shut that fricker off myself.
That is another point. Did the homeowner or someone else call and report the break and how long did the city take to shut it off?
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:33 am to CaptainsWafer
quote:
If maintenance was up to date and documented then what else could the city have done to prevent it?
Have adequate maintenance procedures.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:33 am to Cosmo
What a load of shite... If a oil company had a pipeline rupture and oil ruined a fricking neighborhood... Could they just say nope not responsible...
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:33 am to mack the knife
quote:
isn't LA's rule such that i am not responsible for my tree hitting my neighbor's house unless they have served me with some sort of proper notice?
Not true, you are responsible for removal of the tree now, even if healthy, normally the insurance company will subrogate against the insured's homeowner's insurance for the removal of the tree from the property. Most homeowner's never even know it happens. If the tree is dead or partially dead (should have known) then they will go for all the damages.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:36 am to GeeOH
quote:
This is not a covered flood insurance claim. Flood insurance covers rising water. I don't think this would be covered under flood. (not an expert!)
Correct. It's not a flood. More than likely an investigation would've been done and found it to not be a flood b/c it wasn't due to rising water and it's not considered a flood unless there is at least 2 homes affected. It was due to a busted pipe, but wic is also right.... Most HOs won't cover that either. Pipe in your house or slab. Yup, covered all day long. Well at least most of it is. Water coming in from a busted pipe from the city.... Well good luck with that. B/c your flood ins isn't covering it and your HO isn't covering it. Gonna have to fight the city on that one.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:37 am to CaptainsWafer
I have not messed with flood claims in over a decade, but there has to be the general condition of flood for the flood policy to kick in. In this case, it appears that the condition was reached, but it is also possible that you could have "flood" damage and no flood, as defined by the NFIP.
quote:
A flood is a general and temporary condition where two or more acres of normally dry land or two or more properties are inundated by water or mudflow.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:40 am to Cosmo
quote:
These people had no flood insurance, they didnt need it.
I have flood insurance even though its not required. But am about 150 yards from an area that does. I remember reading my policy that a "flood event" is an event that floods two or more properties. so unless the water main flooded two or more neighbors as well, flood insurance would not have covered it.
This post was edited on 2/24/16 at 7:42 am
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:41 am to Cosmo
quote:
“It was a typical break; one that happens around 70 times a year,” City of Boulder spokesman Ben Irwin said.
Irwin says the water main broke due to a combination of corrosion and pressure and says it’s impossible for them to predict where a water main may break.
That is pretty shitty, but...
quote:
Even though the city has said it’s not their fault, the city adds that each homeowner can file another individual claim with the city to possibly get help paying damages.
The city may not be taking liability in order to limit their future exposure, but there may be ways the residents can get reimbursed by the city.
Supposedly this water main flooded more than a dozen homes. How does something like that happen before it is stopped?
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:44 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Sounds like it would have helped. Lesson learned.
quote:
ThatMakesSense
Might be time to update your name.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:45 am to slackster
just ship to a previous PT post.
In that post they said that public utilities sold water cheaper then private utility companies.
So in this case if the water company was a private owned enterprise, how much are you willing to bet the company would be fully responsible and the city would have imposed fines and demanded restitution to the homeowners...
In that post they said that public utilities sold water cheaper then private utility companies.
So in this case if the water company was a private owned enterprise, how much are you willing to bet the company would be fully responsible and the city would have imposed fines and demanded restitution to the homeowners...
Posted on 2/24/16 at 7:54 am to Jcorye1
quote:
There is actually quite a bit of case law on that. From what I remember, if the tree can be documented to be old/dying/terrible, yes you are responsible
Correct, and if you read the article, it clearly states that corrosion and high pressure happen all the time...I relate that to tree being old
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:07 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Might be time to update your name
Pass.
Flood insurance would have covered this, I'm just saying.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:09 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Pass.
Flood insurance would have covered this, I'm just saying.
Even with all the evidence to the contrary posted in this thread, you're sticking with that?
That does make sense.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:15 am to thejudge
quote:I'm pretty sure yes if they can prove they performed routine maintenance checks and due diligence, was built per plans and specifications. If they can prove it was caused by unforeseen circumstances or cause and not negligence. I'd think it would be a lengthy court battle and depends on the state and conditions of a pipeline easement with state and landowner.
If a oil company had a pipeline rupture and oil ruined a fricking neighborhood... Could they just say nope not responsible...
Water mains break all the time around here due to the high shrink swell soils or some homer owner planting a tree over the line. I'm not sure how you can say that's on the city.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:17 am to Cosmo
quote:
These people had no flood insurance, they didnt need it.
Didnt want it, is what you should have said. Flood insurance for an area that doesnt really have a chance to flood is incredibly inexpensive.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:18 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Even with all the evidence to the contrary posted in this thread, you're sticking with that?
Sure, why not. Fight the power, yo.
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:20 am to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Sure, why not. Fight the power, yo.
Upvote for the cause!
Posted on 2/24/16 at 8:20 am to Cdawg
quote:
not negligence.
Often overlooked in these threads. Sometimes it can truly be no one's fault. You have to prove the city was negligent at the very least, and if you cannot do so, you're SOL.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News