Suing insurance company in small claims court

[melseifi]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

1 - We purchased our house 6 month ago.
2 - We went on vacation ( for three weeks - documented overseas trips) two month later to come back to find water damage in the kitchen
3 - Filed a claim with my insurance company, but it was denied ( damage "appears" to be more than 2 weeks old).
4 - I paid for the repairs myself ( cost well over $10,000) and filed a claim with the Department of Insurance based on the fact that there is no proof that the damage is more than 2 weeks old.
5 - Attached to my claim a letter from the Insurance Company's "Preferred Service Provider" who is considered an expert in the matter, he declared that there is no definite proof that the damage is more than 2 weeks old. ( I used the same restoration company to fix my house).
6 - Now I received a final letter denying my claim after the Department of Insurance tried with them.

7 - Question: I am considering filing in small claims court in CA for the money I spent on the repairs. Is it worth it ?

Thank you for your help

 

[Dandy Don]

Was your home inspected before you purchased it?

Specifically what is the water damage and in what rooms did it happen in and what do you suspect was the cause?

Have you checked online court records for your county small claims court to see what the filing limits are (up to how much you can sue for in damages) or whether your suit needs to be heard in a different court?

 

[Zigner]

Have you checked online court records for your county small claims court to see what the filing limits are (up to how much you can sue for in damages) or whether your suit needs to be heard in a different court?

Small Claims limit in CA for a first-time case such as this is $10,000. (Assuming, of course, that this is the first time the OP has filed a claim in a CA small claims court in the past year.)

 

[melseifi]

Yes the home was inspected and the report does not point to any water problems.

The damage occurred due to the failure of the water supply joint to the ice-maker ( behind the fridge in the kitchen). this connection was not used as I do not use an ice-maker. The reason for the failure of the connection is not known, but theinsurance company claims that it was a slow drip that happened over time, while the restoration company and plumber wrote that there is no proof that this is the case and it could have happened over a short period of time as well.

In my county, the maximum I can sue for is $10,000 ,but I'll be glad to get anything from them at this point.

thanks for your reply.

Was your home inspected before you purchased it?

Specifically what is the water damage and in what rooms did it happen in and what do you suspect was the cause?

Have you checked online court records for your county small claims court to see what the filing limits are (up to how much you can sue for in damages) or whether your suit needs to be heard in a different court?

 

[melseifi]

That's correct, I never filed a claim before. Is it worth the time in this case?

Small Claims limit in CA for a first-time case such as this is $10,000. (Assuming, of course, that this is the first time the OP has filed a claim in a CA small claims court in the past year.)

 

[justalayman]

Are you saying all the damage was done by a slow drip or did the joint rupture and cause a deluge?

 

[melseifi]

The insurance company's version is that the small drip caused the damage over a long period of time ( more than 2 weeks).

I do not have a version, my argument is based on what the "experts" told me ( and wrote in their reports). That there is no way to tell if this happened over three weeks or three days. When the plumber came to identify the root cause, it was not just dripping, he wrote in his report that " the broken joint was leaking as if half-open") . So my argument is that the company is being subjective without any proof that this is happened over more than 2 weeks. In addition we gave them stamped passports proving that we were out of the country for 3 weeks ( we called them the next day to our arrival), but their position is " too bad, we know it's not your fault, but we're not paying anything".

Do I have a case if I sue them in small claims court ?

Are you saying all the damage was done by a slow drip or did the joint rupture and cause a deluge?

 

[justalayman]

Just as the insurance company is arguing it took place over more than 2 weeks without proof, you are arguing the opposite, again with no proof. When suing, the plaintiff has the obligation to prove, beyond a preponderance the evidence. It doesn't appear you have the proof to suppport your contention. Due to that you would likely lose.

 

[melseifi]

thanks for your opinion. I will file anyway, it took me less time to fill the paper work and upload it than posting in this forum. We'll see what happens.

Just as the insurance company is arguing it took place over more than 2 weeks without proof, you are arguing the opposite, again with no proof. When suing, the plaintiff has the obligation to prove, beyond a preponderance the evidence. It doesn't appear you have the proof to suppport your contention. Due to that you would likely lose.