Adjacent tiles lift after repair work. Is it malpractice?

Page 2 of 6  
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:13:07 -0500, "Terry Coombs"

Darn right. The guy who did my roof did a v. good job at a lower price than most others charge and two years later, I called him to do other work. His mother said he only did roofs. (His mother was his secretary. I think he lived "at home" and worked out of their home. But he had 3 other guys and a dump truck with him.
Plus I got his name from a neighbor and my friend got his name from me afterwards.

Maybe you can come back for a few days!
--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

That depends upon where you live. In Florida, small claims handles up to a $5000 claim the filing fee for which is $500.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/7/2015 2:19 PM, dadiOH wrote:

Wow, that is not so small. In CT it is $90 for a claim, $90 for a counter claim. Of course, appeal to the Supreme Court is $250.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 2:19:20 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:

Not what I'm seeing.
http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/forms/fees/escambia_clerk_fees.pdf
For less than $100, it's $50 100 - 500, $85 500 - 2500, $175 2500 - 5000 $500
At least for that FL county. It's still hefty compared to every other state I've seen. To have to risk another $175 to recover $500, doesn't make much sense to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 11:36:40 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

And I will use it. I wrote in another answer that there is actually very little in the contract about adjacent tiles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:21:20 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:

I thought you previously posted that the contract says he's not responsible for damage to adjacent tiles?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/8/2015 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:

At this point, everyone is confused I think we should put together a group of 12 of us to visit the OP's house and see for ourselves. We'll have the contractor meet us there. Just in case, we will also carry some rope in case we find in favor of the homeowner so we can quickly give justice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not going unless you get a bunch of the alt.food.barbecue people to join us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If there will be twelve of us going, how many spares will there be?
Will any members of this contingent be near-by and/or adjacent to another member?
Will there be any substances injected under any member of the contingent?
If one member is injected and a near-by member cracks (or worse yet, pops) will that be covered under warranty?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...

Is it mobility "enhanced"? Monster & I can roll our chairs across it and settle it in a minute. Please forward flight and lodging expenses portal to portal plus per-diem "Monster Court"
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Yea, I pretty much took them at their word that it was excluded. Then I actually read it and it's just not there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I am sure the judge will find your case fascinating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"

No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles right up to the ones that came up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:

I thought you said he injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles that came up? That's the assumption that everyone here is working on. If he didn't, then I'm at a loss as to how the adjacent ones could suddenly violently pop out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

s like

he

In

that

em

ult"

t is

at it

e that

to

ose

or

But

Please don't include me in the "everyone here" assumption. I *never* though t that the contractor (purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles. That is the reason I have been saying that this may not be a warranty issue.
The warranty would cover the tiles he actually worked on and the contract e xclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't neccesarily feel that the "protection" clause is valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 1:14:09 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

nds like

the

. In

s that

them

is

fault"

it is

that it

use that

".

t to

those

ctor

. But

ght that the contractor

n I have been saying that

He did say this:
"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come up."
If he didn't inject something under the tiles that suddenly and violently popped up the next day, IDK what could account for that happening.

exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage t o nearby tiles. Now, I don't neccesarily feel that the "protection" clause is >valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.
I agree that the exclusion clause wouldn't count if he can show that the contractor didn't know what he was doing, used the wrong adhesive, etc. If he can show that, then it's gross negligence, whether he can prove it or not, IDK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 3:23:47 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

ounds like

er the

th. In

tes that

s them

e is

y fault"

p, it is

d that it

lause that

es".

ent to

r those

ractor

rt. But

s

ought that the contractor

son I have been saying that

I believe that you are missing my point. No problem, I'll try to explain it differently.
In my previous post I said "I never thought that the contractor (purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles."
Note the word (purposely). That is key to my point. Here is how I imagine i t went down:
The contract covered a specific number of tiles that either needed to be completely re-set (as in either re-glued or replaced with spares)as well as a specific number of tiles that were to be fixed via the injection of adhesiv e. I believe that that understanding of the situation fits the OP's words "the y injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't co me up." The "completely re-set" and "contracted-for adhesive-injected" tiles would be covered by the warranty. No problem there.
Now, in the process of injecting adhesive under the contracted-for tiles, t he contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's sa y by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.
In other words, let's say the contract says: "The 6 tiles in the 2nd row fr om the south wall will have adhesive injected under them." The next morning , the 6 tiles in the *1st* row from the wall all pop up. Since they were no t covered by the contract and (supposedly) no adhesive was injected under t hem, the contractor would (supposedly) not be responsible nor would they be covered by the warranty.
Granted, I don't know if a clause like that would stand up in court. It alm ost gives the contractor carte blanche to *cause* damage to "near by tiles" to get more work. At a minimum, would he really not be responsible if he d ropped a hammer on the way into the house and cracked a tile that was 20' f rom the actual job site? I would hope that that would not be the case.

ct exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't necessarily feel that the "protection" claus e is >valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.

Absolutely. Can you imagine a contractor that comes to your house to instal l a window on the second floor with a contract that includes a clause that says "I'll warranty the new window for 2 years but I'm not responsible for damag e to any other windows." As he is putting his ladder up, he puts it through your $10K bay window with the liquid crystal Switchable Privacy Glass. "Whoops, sorry, not covered. Says so in the contract. Hey look, I'm a nice guy so I'll repair it for $5K."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:58:02 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

it


as a

ive.

hey

come


the contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" tha t had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor i s claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.
It all depends on what the OP means by:
"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come up."
You're taking that to mean that the other tiles were in a different area, on their own. I and I think most others here took it to mean that these were some of the adjacent tiles.
I have two reasons for thinking he meant adjacent tiles. One is that with the loose tiles removed, it would be easy and logical to inject adhesive under the adjacent tiles. How you inject adhesive under other tiles somewhere else that aren't already loose isn't clear to me. Second is that something caused these tiles to violently pop a day later. Injecting something under them would explain it. Absent that, how do you account for them suddenly popping?
I think we're in agreement on the rest of the issue, maybe the OP will clarify this point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:
"No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles right up to the ones that came up. "
So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab, so I don't get it.
Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones. That's what I would do.
Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.