Negligence?

[SteveCo]

Jurisdiction

Florida

I had a new roof put on my home a few months ago. The roofers hit the plumbing pipes while nailing down the shingles in multiple places thus causing extensive water damage. They are claiming they are not responsible because I agreed to this clause in the contract:

1. [Roofing Company] is not responsible for broken plumbing pipes that was not installed to state code: All plumbing pipes must be installed 3" below the roof deck, including A/C plumbing.

They told me they would pay for 1/2 to "make it right" but are not even obligated to do that.

So... here is the thing. The plumbing was re-piped in 1999, inspected, and approved by the city. It WAS done to code... in 1999. Current code has changed that.

What are your thoughts? Can they cause that kind of damage and not be liable? How am I, as a homeowner supposed to know there is plumbing in the attic? Was I expected to have the entire home checked and brought up to code? That seems unrealistic. I was told by one of their reps that multiple people have tried to sue and no one has won.

My insurance company said I do not have water damage coverage due to the age of the home so I cannot file a claim with them.

 

[Zigner]

I had a new roof put on my home a few months ago. The roofers hit the plumbing pipes while nailing down the shingles in multiple places thus causing extensive water damage. They are claiming they are not responsible because I agreed to this clause in the contract:

1. [Roofing Company] is not responsible for broken plumbing pipes that was not installed to state code: All plumbing pipes must be installed 3" below the roof deck, including A/C plumbing.

They told me they would pay for 1/2 to "make it right" but are not even obligated to do that.

So... here is the thing. The plumbing was re-piped in 1999, inspected, and approved by the city. It WAS done to code... in 1999. Current code has change that.

What are your thoughts? Can they cause that kind of damage and not be liable? How am I, as a homeowner supposed to know there is plumbing in the attic? Was I expected to have the entire home checked and brought up to code? That seems unrealistic. I was told by one of their reps that multiple people have tried to sue and no one has won.

My insurance company said I do not have water damage coverage due to the age of the home.

There are two parts to the clause you quoted. Not only does it have to be installed per code, but (and this is what will get you), it must be installed 3" below the roof deck. Were your pipes installed 3" below the roof deck?

 

[SteveCo]

I am not 100% sure as I have not been up there to look.

 

[adjusterjack]

I am not 100% sure as I have not been up there to look.

Go look.

My insurance company said I do not have water damage coverage due to the age of the home so I cannot file a claim with them.

Who said that?

Your agent?

A claim rep in the Claims Department after you reported the claim?

Did you ask that person to tell you where in the policy it says that?

Did you read your policy to find out where it says that?

Take out your policy and put it on the table in front of you. The first page on top should be the declaration page which gives you a summary of the policy. Starting at the top, working your way down the page, tell me everything it says. Or scan it and upload it here for me to take a look at.

 

[Tax Counsel]

What are your thoughts? Can they cause that kind of damage and not be liable? How am I, as a homeowner supposed to know there is plumbing in the attic? Was I expected to have the entire home checked and brought up to code? That seems unrealistic. I was told by one of their reps that multiple people have tried to sue and no one has won.

My insurance company said I do not have water damage coverage due to the age of the home so I cannot file a claim with them.

I think you need a contract attorney to read the exact language of the contract and tell you how the state appellate courts ruled on similar cases (if indeed they have one come before the court). The problem I see with what you presented here is that there is potential ambiguity in the contract. It disclaims any liability if the pipes did not meet the building code. It doesn't expressly say that it means the current code, though IMO it seems to imply that. However the court may see it differently. This is one of those things that should be been mad crystal clear in the contract. If the court holds that you had to be up to current code, then the contractor may not have to pay anything for the damages.

You also, of course, need to check if they were three feet under the roof deck. If the pipes didn't meet that requirement then the contractor has a very good defense because that part of the contract is quite clear.

Even if the company does not have an out under that clause, that does not automatically make the contractor negligent. More facts about how the work was done and what the standard is for such work would be needed for that. It might be easier and more straightforward to win on a breach of contract claim, though you'd want to include both claims if you have the facts to support both.

 

[Zigner]

You also, of course, need to check if they were three feet under the roof deck. If the pipes didn't meet that requirement then the contractor has a very good defense because that part of the contract is quite clear.

3 inches

 

[adjusterjack]

I am not 100% sure as I have not been up there to look.

Again, go look. And take a picture of how the water lines are mounted and post it here. I know something about plumbing and roofing and this is not making sense.