Adjacent tiles lift after repair work. Is it malpractice?

[DerbyDad03]

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."

[micky]

If you'd put this in the OP, I woudl have included Florida in my search, but now it's your turn!

[micky]

Wow. Save these pictures. If you cancel t he payment and the credit card company backs you up, and he sues you, or if you sue him, you're going to need a floor authority, a tile installation tradesman to testify for you or at least write you and affidavit that he saw the damage, or at least the pictures (I can see that the 2nd, 3rd, and maybe the 4th row back are all uplifted ** and that the repairs were done improperly and best if he knows what can make this sort of things happen and can say what make s it happen and why it shouldn't have been done that way.

The proof seems like it shoudl be in the pudding, in that it turned out so bad, but judges want testimony or an affidavite from someone experienced in the field. On letterhead stationery or maybe on their invoice. But it can't just say, "Tiles dislodged during repair." Everyone knows that. It has to say that the fault, the mistake, the error is the original guys's failure to do the job correctly. It shoudl take into consideration the original installation of the tiles that got upplifted. Someone suggested it was all done wrong, but the house is several years old.... I forget if the problem he created with these new tiles is the same problem he was fixing on the tiles he was fixing. If so, that's bad for you legally and morally. The counter argument will be that I was there to fix N ties for this very problem, and these new ones woudl have developed the same problem eventually/soon.

Even though you only paid him 900, that doesn't mean you are limited to that amount when you sue. What you are limited by is how much damage he did. Someone can do a 10 dollar repair to a car and in doing so can negligently set fire to a 30 thousand dollar car, and owe the owner

30,000. Businessmen have to consider this when they set their prices and when they decide if they know how to do a job or not.

The contract you signed might be a problem, but I don't think it's enough to make you lose the case.

**And in this case being uplifted isn't good.

If you can dislodge from one corner or in front of the closet, I'd repair what I have there and use new tiles to make some corner, or edge, or doorway out of a contrasting color or pattern. It's not likely but maybe you can buy more tiles just like these.

And I'd go back to the real estate agent and tell her what a bad job he did.

And can't you bring some of the adhesive to the guy writng the etter, and won't any guy worth his salt konw what it is when he see it and whetehr it was the wrong thing to use? Or is that bad for you? I don't care if they did install it worng in the firrst place Maybe that lessens your recovery but what this repairguy did was the proximate cause of all your problems. Even if it had been installed wrong, you'd been using it for years with ... no problem except the reason he was there. Like I say, I don't know if that is related to your current problem.

[trader_4]

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.

[dgk]

True. It's strange to put the credit card company in the position of a court. It really isn't their job to determine what the contract says. I took a closer look at the contract and there is vary little said about adjacent tiles. The only part that seems to apply is thatt they are not responsible for glue leakage outside of the work area. Well, by glue leakage I think of some glue coming up, not 25 tiles coming up.

[dgk]

And I will use it. I wrote in another answer that there is actually very little in the contract about adjacent tiles.

[trader_4]

I thought you previously posted that the contract says he's not responsible for damage to adjacent tiles?

[dgk]

There does seem to be some debate on that topic. I would use a top quality laminate since it's in a kitchen. What would be installed between the concrete and the laminate?

One thing I read about laminate is that it is very easy to replace and not very expensive to buy, so if there is a water leak and it gets ruined, it's fairly easy to just pull it up and put new stuff down and a contractor isn't needed. Is that true?

[dgk]

Thanks. I don't think that it's worth trying to fix the current mess. I don't have any of the adhesive. I don't think I even saw the stuff. I was working in another room when most of this was being done.

[trader_4]

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.

[DerbyDad03]

s, 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" 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 boundaries.

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 s 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 contract.

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 y 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 responsibility.

We'll see...

[DerbyDad03]

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.

[trader_4]

les, the contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, le 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 it, etc.

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.

[clare]

It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy

- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but won't stand up any better.

[Ed Pawlowski]

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.

[taxed and spent]

I am not going unless you get a bunch of the alt.food.barbecue people to join us.

[DerbyDad03]

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?

[Tekkie®]

dgk posted for all of us...

My opinion is bad work. I would call the agent that made the recommendation and complain. Emphasize that they made a bad referral and should be taken off their list. Also tell the agent you are leary of their referrals. The agent will probably be on the phone to the tile guy quickly; these referrals are a life blood to contractors.

[Tekkie®]

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®]

[e-mail] posted for all of us...

I wonder if the tile people leveled the surface? If they didn't then the high spots cause this type of damage, which Ditra is an excellent product to use in this instance.