Neighbor's broken pipe water damage

paragonsurfclub

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
Our neighbor has a private driveway which leads to their home, it is adjacent to our property line. The driveway is on their property and is not shared by anyone. Recently, their water pipe had a major leak which caused about $5,200 in damages to our property. We discovered the leak, called our neighbor to inform them, we also called the HOA patrol, who in turned called the fire department who has a special tool to turn off the water. Additionally, we called our water district who sent out a technician. After about 2 hours, our driveway (80 yards) was covered in about a foot of water, our gravel path to our equestrian facility was washed away and damage was done to our riding arena. We called our insurance agent and they advised us to get the work repaired and they would work with the neighbor on reimbursement. Repairs were about $5,200 and took a week to complete. We have all the receipts from the repairs and a memo from the water district confirming that the pipes belong to our neighbor.

During the evening we also learned that the neighbor had a major leak the week before, which did not affect our property.

The neighbor's insurance company offered to reimburse us for only half of our damages. We feel that we should be reimbursed in full.

Should we accept the $2500 or take the client to small claims court for the full amount?

Thanks for your advice!

Paragonsurfclub
 
During the evening we also learned that the neighbor had a major leak the week before

Tell me more about that.

What did the neighbor do about that leak after it happened?

Did the same pipe leak or break after that or was it a different section?

If the first unforeseen leak was at Point A and the second unforeseen leak was at Point B then the first leak would be irrelevant and there would be no negligence involved in the second leak and the neighbor wouldn't owe you anything.

So, what else do you know about the first leak in relation to the second leak?

And did his insurance company claim rep say why he is only offering half?
 
Tell me more about that.

What did the neighbor do about that leak after it happened?

Did the same pipe leak or break after that or was it a different section?

If the first unforeseen leak was at Point A and the second unforeseen leak was at Point B then the first leak would be irrelevant and there would be no negligence involved in the second leak and the neighbor wouldn't owe you anything.

So, what else do you know about the first leak in relation to the second leak?

And did his insurance company claim rep say why he is only offering half?

REPLY:

Thank you! I assume that he had the pipes fixed as it is a private fire hydrant.

The first leak did not affect my property which sits below his property, so I would assume that it was somewhere else on his 5 acre lot. When we were trying to turn off the leaking water and was looking for the valves under the two feet of water, his son referenced that they had to find the values the week before because they had another large leak.

If it were the same pipe the water would have run downhill on to my land. So, I understand your point about not being connected. Although, I think that one of the reasons for the broken pipes is that there is a lot of water pressure here, which causes pipes to break. I had to get a regulator to make sure that the pressure does not get too high. But, I'm not sure that his breaks were pressure related or not but it is very common here and could be the reason. If that is the case he possibly could be negligent for not making sure that his pipes were properly maintained or regulated. But, I'm can't say for sure what he has or has not done.

The adjustor said that it was just a good faith offer on their part to offer any money. If I accepted it I would not have the opportunity to make additional claims against my neighbor.

As I read your note it appears that even though it was his leak, on his property that unless I can prove that he is negligent then the loss is completely mine? That sucks!
 
Considering that pipe leaks are common in your area and, as a practical matter, beyond anybody's control until something actually happens, I don't see that there would be negligence involved, or at least very difficult (and expensive) to prove in court. Being reactive instead of pro-active with regard to pipe leaks isn't necessarily negligence.

Having a leak at Point A and wrapping it with duct tape would be negligence when it leaked again. You get the idea.

The adjustor said that it was just a good faith offer on their part to offer any money. If I accepted it I would not have the opportunity to make additional claims against my neighbor.

That's right.

I can't tell you what choice to make. If you sue the neighbor with a case that's rather iffy, and you don't win, you get nothing. If you settle you get almost half.
 
A bird in the pot is STILL worth two birds in the bush.
 
Back
Top