On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:36:52 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
It looks like we responded at the same time. I think you now see how I interpreted the situation, so I guess we're good.
I'd love to hear the final outcome of this. Best case is the OP get's his
$900 back from the tile contractor and also gets some relief from the previous owners due to some disclosure law.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
Ah, disclosure law. I'll ask about that. In New York, the seller is
supposed to sign a document stating that they have disclosed all the
known issues. There is a $500 penalty, paid to the buyer at closing,
for failing to submit that document. Any lawyer who suggests signing
it rather than paying the $500 at closing would be sued for
When I sold my house, I did not sign the document and paid the $500.
It is simply part of the cost of selling the house.
But I'll check with the lawyer that I used to buy this Florida house.
I don't recall getting $500 in lieu of a disclosure document. Of
course, Florida might not have such a document at all.
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:57:20 -0400, dgk
NYS and NYC have a lot of good laws you won't find other places. or
you'll find them but they were passed after NY did.
Certainly more than Maryland, but that's partly because Md. has a lot
fewer people, fewer complaints, fewer case decisions, fewer reasons to
improve the laws. Unless you're one who needed an improved law, then
the reason is very big.
I posted a map that was supposed to be the work that was actually
done. It came right up to the start of the kitchen tiles but stopped
just before the ones that actually started lifting.
Even if warned, I don't know what I could have done but had the repair
attempted. Most of the house is those tiles, all connected. Actually,
in a way, I got lucky - at least so far. The tiles that blew up were
in the kitchen, and that can logically have a separate scheme from the
rest of the house. If it had blow up towards the dining room, or
towards the 2nd bedroom, or the tiles that head around the (carpeted)
living room, that would have been a real disaster. Tiles switching to
a different type of tile could be odd looking. I would probably have
had to redo the entire house.
But this way, we salvage a lot of tiles from the kitchen. That way, if
problems do creep up down the road, I'll have a lot of spares to deal
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
s say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" t
hat had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor
is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.
Yes, and "on their own" could in fact mean "right next to" or "adjacent" to
the tiles that were contracted for. That would indeed be "a different area"
in terms of what was contracted for.
Let's try this example: Imagine two properties with adjacent lots. One
property is in East Bewildered, ME, the other property is in West
Bewildered, ME. 2 adjacent properties covered by different codes, laws,
rules. Now imagine 2 adjacent tiles. One covered by contract to be repaired
thus covered by a warranty, the other one nothing more than a "near by"
tile, thus excluded from the warranty and also specifically excluded by the
"responsibility clause". The towns have boundaries, the contract had
If we go all the back to the first post we see this:
"The contractor walked around the house hitting all the tiles with a
broomstick handle so he could tell the general state of the tiles. "
Once that was done, I imagine that there was an agreed upon set of tiles
that would be repaired, either by resetting, replacing or injecting. Any
other tiles, whether they are in the next row over from the contracted tile
or in other room, would not be part of the contract. They might be near by,
they might be adjacent, they might be on another floor. Regardless of where
they are, they are indeed "on their own/in another area" in terms of the
We are in 100% agreement here.
I think that this is where we keep diverging. I must not be explaining
myself very well. I never said that nothing was injecting under the
popping tiles. I have repeatedly said, in various ways, that nothing was
*supposed* to have been injected under the popping tiles. I have no problem
imagining this happening:
The contractor tapped on Tile 1 and determined that it needed to be
injected. He then tapped on Tile 2 - an adjacent tile - and decided it
did not need to be injected. Tile 1 is included in the contract, Tile 2 is
not. He then injects adhesive under Tile 1 and it enters the gaps he found
by tapping. However, the adhesive also seeps under Tile 2, perhaps into ver
small gaps - gaps so small that Tile 2 passed the tapping test. Overnight,
the adhesive expands to fill the gaps in Tile 1 (a good thing) but also
overfills the small gaps in Tile 2, popping it off the floor (a bad thing).
Tile 1 (contracted) is OK, so there is no warranty issue. Tile 2 (non-
contracted) pops, but is excluded from the contractor's responsibility by
the "near by tiles" clause.
So, yes, I am completely agreeing that there was adhesive "injected" under
Tile 2, but trying to point out that it wasn't done intentionally (or at
least not under contract) therefore excluded from the contractor's
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 9:15:46 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
t's say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles"
that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contract
or is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.
But regardless, even if the ones that were injected were on their
own, then they *are* ones that were contracted for. The exclusion
of adjacent tiles would then be any tiles in that area that are
adjacent to the ones injected. In areas where tiles were loose,
removed, replaced, adjacent would be any tiles that were not removed,
replaced, injected, etc.
But the ones that are adjacent to ones that were worked on in any
way would be subject to the exclusion.
Yes, that I agree with. If it was unintentionally seepage that caused
it. I guess one big problem would be the contractor can claim that
and unless the OP was watching, how would he know, how could he prove
K, I think this is what wasn't clear to me. I was only looking at
injecting as being done purposefully. If we include seepage, I agree.
being lifted and replaced, apparently the ones that sounded hollow
when hit with a broom handle. They injected something, I'm assuming an
adhesive, into those holes between the tiles. Then they somehow filled
the hole in the grout, I didn't see how. The last tiles they treated
like that were immediately adjacent to the ones that started
I'm sorry, I thought that that was a standard way of getting adhesive
under tiles and figured that everyone knew about it. My guess is that
they simply injected too much adhesive and the sideways pressure was
more than the other tiles could take. But that must have been a lot of
The tiles that are immediately adjacent to the work area are actually
still on the floor so I can't tell if anything leaked under them.
They're raised but I want a pro to remove them because I want to save
as many as I can. Besides, it doesn't matter if adhesive leaked under
them. The pressure of the adhesive under the other tiles must have
been sufficient to push those tiles enough to break them loose.
Something sure did.
tiles that popped? The popped tiles were a whole tile away from the
tiles he re-installed?
The general justification for not covering "damage to nearby tile"
has to do with the possibility of damagina the tile next to an already
damaged tile while removing it. "No guarantee we won't have to replace
up to 8 adjacent tiles to remove the single damaged tile in the middle
of your floor" makes sense. "no guarantee that undamaged tile may not
jump off the floor or crack within hours or days of us finished the
repair job" does not - unless they know they are doing something wrong
that has caused that kind of damage in the past.
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:23:24 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
What they are saying is that by adjacent tiles, the contract should
be interpreted to mean tiles that are OK, don't need to be worked on
at all, break during any removal work, etc. Tiles that the contractor
chose to inject adhesive under are not considered "adjacent", they are
part of the work area.
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:03:54 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
cording to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is
not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.
I can't tell if you are agreeing with me that it is not a warranty issue or
It sounded to me like the contractor did indeed add adhesive to existing ti
les and I agree that that is indeed part of the new work. However, it also
sounds to me that it was not any of the tiles he worked on that are the one
s that subsequently popped. Had the "new work" tiles popped, then it would
be a warranty issue, but if a "nearby" tile popped - with nearby tiles bein
g explicitly excempted in the contract - then it's not technically a warran
One could argue that the exception is not enforceable, but that's a contrac
t issue, not a warranty issue.
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:06:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
If it's not express, it's implied.
Of course there is a warranty and it's an issue. "Contractors must
perform their work, including the selection of materials, in a
workmanlike manner even when their contract does not cover this
requirement, a Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District
recently reaffirmed." But it's the law everywhere.
This is just one of many urls on the subject. I don't know where dg
I cannot imagine anything that would lift up adjacent tiles, the sole
exception being something that expanded as it cured (like foam). If the
latter, it should not have been used...the only thing that should be used to
stick down floor tiles on a slab is either thinset (cementatious) or mastic
and, personally, I wouldn't use mastic.
What I do know is that you were screwed royally on the price...$900 to
replace 12 tiles is ridiculous..
no, he didn't.
he said 12 tiles had previously been replaced in a diamond pattern.
he said the guy used a broomstick to tell the state of the tiles around the
He did not say how many tiles were replaced or adjusted.
He did say that 6 spare tiles were used.
He did not say that only the 12 tiles that had previously been replaced were
replaced or adjusted.
He did not say the number of tiles that were replaced or adjusted for the
You are welcome,
O Learned One.
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.