Workers removed wrong roof

[snopes]

A Florida man whose roof was removed by workers who confused his house for a neighbor's said he is demanding his roof be replaced free of charge.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/09/...2861254171714/

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Since the company seems to have acknoweledged they did remove the wrong roof, I feel free to say they have no excuse for not replacing it even before being asked. They certainly have no business demanding the victim or his insurance company pay anything. They screwed up - they need to make it right.

ETA:

Okay, a little calmer now - that situation ticked me off. Normally the measure of dmaages when you have accidentally caused someone harm is that value of the harm done. If your 5-year-old gets destroyed, you get the value of a 5-year-old car, not a brand new replecement. The article did not at all address the issue of the legal measure of damages - perhaps the company was just balking at not just the value of the damage they did, but providing him an upgrade to new for replacing an old roof.

I still think the company should replace the roof at no charge. But the legal measure would be to reduce the damages to the extent the old roof had aged.

[dfresh]

ATNM, you get the value of a 5 year old car with the thought that you can go out and buy a 5 year old car. You can't go buy a used roof.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by dfresh

ATNM, you get the value of a 5 year old car with the thought that you can go out and buy a 5 year old car. You can't go buy a used roof.

True, which is why I think the proper action is for the company to replace it, but the common law recovery would be the lower amount of the value of the item damaged.

I am also concerned about the possible scam implications: "Oops, we made a mistake. Just submit the claim to your insurance company and we'll fix it right up."

[WildaBeast]

I had my roof replaced last spring. When I signed the work order they had me verify that the address was correct, and they recomended that I be home on the day they tore off the old roof.

The contractor also spent quite a bit of time describing *their* insurance coverage. Though he didn't specifically mention what they'd do in a case like this, I wonder if it really should be the contractor's insurance that should cover this (Assuming the contractor was properly insured, of course).

[Beachlife!]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

True, which is why I think the proper action is for the company to replace it, but the common law recovery would be the lower amount of the value of the item damaged....

I think he has the right to be compensated for his damages. The value of these damages would be determined by reasonable repair cost, which would mean putting a new roof back on.

I would also think that he can file several criminal complaints. That alone should be enough for the roofing company to agree to make it right.

[Not_Done_Living]

Originally Posted by Beachlife!

I would also think that he can file several criminal complaints. That alone should be enough for the roofing company to agree to make it right.

Such as Trespassing (multiple counts based on the number of contracters present), vandalism (multiple counts based on the number of contractors present), theft (of the materials that they removed from his home).

This would be like if a PC tech walked intou your home and formatted your hard drive, and then offered to reinstall the OS for $129.00

[FullMetal]

also automobiles are different. it's not JUST a roof that was damaged, it was the entire house. continuing with the car metaphor, you damage the front end of a car, the insurance company decides if it's worth repairing the front of the car or writing off the car. So with the roof being ripped off, it's not just a matter of the roof being an individual item. the man's house is damaged, if the cost of the roof is more than the value of the house, they should only have to pay the amount the house was worth. as they pretty much destroyed the house. now, it can be repaired with a new roof. if I have a scratched up old front end of my car and someone hits me, and is at fault and the insurance company deems that a new front end is cheaper than replacing the car, i will get a new front end. doesn't matter the condition it was in before, it was functional before, and it should be functional afterwards. same with a roof. the roof is not an individual item in this case, it doesn't matter if it's an upgrade to "new", the house is still old, it's having a new roof isn't going to change the age of the house. it having no roof is going to severely damage the house, and cause the house to lose value. The right thing to do is replace the roof free of charge.

Besides if they force the man to pay for even a portion of it, that is one hell of a scam, do that once a month, and you're generating free work for yourself! truth be told, I'd almost say that they should have to pay ANOTHER roofing company to replace the roof if their insurance is paying for the new roof. because if the insurance company pays them market price to replace the roof, they're making a profit on their mistake. which provides an incentive to make this mistake again.

[Just Jocko]

When a mistake like this occurs, courts usually hold that the homeowner must be made whole again. I suppose that, if the work were up to code, the roofing company could re-install the roof using the removed materials as much as possible. The problem for the roofing company is that they have probably disposed of those materials. Which means that a brand-new roof must be installed.

There is a reason why reputable contractors and bonded and insured -- so that employees making amistake like this don't bankrupt the company. I suspect that this particular contractor isn't insured (or that their insurance company won't pay for some reason). Which doesn't really mean anything for the homeowner, the company still has to make him whole.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Just Jocko

I suppose that, if the work were up to code, the roofing company could re-install the roof using the removed materials as much as possible. The problem for the roofing company is that they have probably disposed of those materials.

I don't think anything from the "tear off" of the roof is usable. The shingles and tar paper are pretty much 100% destroyed during the removal process.

[zman977]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

when you have accidentally caused someone harm is that value of the harm done. If your 5-year-old gets destroyed, you get the value of a 5-year-old car,.

If your five year old gets destroyed you get the value of a new car? I've heard of the cars for kids program but that's a little extreme. I know what you meant but the way you typed it souded like if you're five year old child gets destroyed you get the value of a new car.

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by zman977

If your five year old gets destroyed you get the value of a new car? I've heard of the cars for kids program but that's a little extreme.

It's all part of Obama's socialist 'Cash for Colics' program that's supposed to boost the economy.

- Il-Mari

[Just Jocko]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

I don't think anything from the "tear off" of the roof is usable. The shingles and tar paper are pretty much 100% destroyed during the removal process.

Well, then, a new roof it is. They have to make him whole again, even if that means he gets a brand-new roof.

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living

Such as Trespassing (multiple counts based on the number of contracters present), vandalism (multiple counts based on the number of contractors present), theft (of the materials that they removed from his home).

This would be like if a PC tech walked intou your home and formatted your hard drive, and then offered to reinstall the OS for $129.00

In California you could not press criminal charges against them unless you could show they did it on purppose. Ex: They knew it was the wrong house.
This would be treated as a civil matter, and the courts would have to decide how to handle the case. I would think the quickest way to resolve it is to have a third party come replace the roof.

[Lgreywolf]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

I would think the quickest way to resolve it is to have a third party come replace the roof.

But who should pay for the third party to replace the roof? That's what is under debate.

IMO, whatever company ends up replacing the roof, the roofing company that removed the wrong roof should pay the entire cost. Why should this man see higher insurance premiums by having his insurance cover most of the cost (not that this would definitely happen, but it seems likely.) Even if insurance covered it, and his premiums didn't go up, why should he get stuck paying the deductible for the roofer's mistake?

Not to mention he had to cut his vacation short. This really should be a no-brainer.

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by Lgreywolf

But who should pay for the third party to replace the roof? That's what is under debate.

It's not really much of a debate. The roofer who removed the roof would have to pay to replace the roof. It is really a civil matter, and there is enough case law that this is a no brainer. The roofer of course is going to say this is debatable because he wants to mitigate his damages, but in the end he is buying a new roof. Personally I would not want him to work on my roof, and would want a third party to replace it.

[Lgreywolf]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

It's not really much of a debate. The roofer who removed the roof would have to pay to replace the roof. It is really a civil matter, and there is enough case law that this is a no brainer. The roofer of course is going to say this is debatable because he wants to mitigate his damages, but in the end he is buying a new roof. Personally I would not want him to work on my roof, and would want a third party to replace it.

Agreed, I wouldn't want him working on my roof either. Hopefully he's not going to be obstinate enough about not paying that he drags it into court. That just puts the homeowner through unncessasary red tape and adds court costs to the roofing company's expenses.

[Just Jocko]

Originally Posted by Lgreywolf

Agreed, I wouldn't want him working on my roof either. Hopefully he's not going to be obstinate enough about not paying that he drags it into court. That just puts the homeowner through unncessasary red tape and adds court costs to the roofing company's expenses.

Although, if he does take it to court, the homeowner will get costs reimbursed (including attorney fees). He'd actually stand a good chance of getting reimbursed for having to cut his vacation short. And maybe even punitive damages. The roofing company will not win this case in court. The only thing they will do is buy themselves some more time (which may be their intent), but it will cost them more in the end.

[zman977]

I say the company made the mistake they should replace the roof free of charge. Seems pretty simple to me. Bet next time they'll be more carefull.