Home damaged by construction elsewhere, his insurer dragging feet

[paperdetective]

In 2007, a sub-contractor working on a constuction project about a block and a half away caused 'vibration due to pile driving' related' earth movement that resulted in an earthquake and damage to my home and 11 other homes here in Dedham, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.

My repair cost and expenses for experts and legal ad vice amont now to $45000. The insurers of both main contractor (also developer and owner) and sub-contractor dragged their fete for a year and then only one of them offered me orally $ 7,500, which is an offered we found unserious and therefore rejected.

After 1 1/2 year they contacted us agan and still with sam eoffer. By then we were desperate to get at leats get soem money and suggested orally that each insurer pay $7500, so total $15,000 to settle.

Both insurers (via attorneys) said orally they would accept that, but would want to then claim the amount with the other, so the terms became unacceptable, since either offer would fail, once either of them paid out first and would claim with the other and we would still end up with only $ 7,500.

We explained this problem to each orally via an attorney but neither opposing insurer wanted to address that problem by issuing a written guarantee they woudl not renege if teh other claimed with him.

So we still collected $ 0 dollars. On top of that the builder/contractor is starting another project nearby and we may end up with similar fruiless claims unless he is made to understand he will incur costs.

We desire to know:
- if a bad faith claim can be made against both 3rd party insurers (both are out of state) and how
- if we can do the claim so 'on our own' without attorney or on a contingency basis (preferred). We have no funds to pay for further attorney fees than those we already paid.
- if there are any legal filing deadlines

Note that there are two engineer expert reports, one establishing the damage and a second establishing once more the damage plus additional damage after settliing of home and an ambiguous conclusion by expert on the causality, so relationship to project (thanks to bad instructions to expert by initial attorney.)

Peter, Massachusetts

 

[JustAPal00]

Why didn't you go through your own insurer and let them handle it? Since you have proof that the workers were responsible.

 

[JETX]

- if a bad faith claim can be made against both 3rd party insurers (both are out of state) and how

Of course you can make such claim, but your post does not present any evidence of it being valid.

- if we can do the claim so 'on our own' without attorney or on a contingency basis (preferred). We have no funds to pay for further attorney fees than those we already paid.

Moot. See above.

- if there are any legal filing deadlines

Yes. The SOL (Statute of Limitations) in Massachusetts for property damage is "3 yrs from time of occurrence".

Contact your county Bar Association and ask for a free- or low-cost referral. Then, hire an attorney to take this case and pursue your claim. Do it NOW.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

caused 'vibration due to pile driving' related' earth movement that resulted in an earthquake and damage

Does vibration due to pile driving frequently cause earthquakes?

I suspect there's an issue of foreseeabiliy and proximate cause.

 

[moburkes]

Why didn't you go through your own insurer and let them handle it? Since you have proof that the workers were responsible.

I've never been licensed in MA, but earthquake is usually excluded.

 

[paperdetective]

Why didn't you go through your own insurer and let them handle it? Since you have proof that the workers were responsible.

My insurer is pretty bad (Preferred Mutual in NY) and simply denied my claim based on the standard policy(which is how it is nowadays everywhere when insuring a home) never covers 'man made earth movement'. Since a court case in 2005, insurers have made this rule a default, so no one is insured anymore for that risk nor is it insurable in any othe way.

The insurer did not bother to help out otherwise. Such a 'concierge' type of assistance, to help in one's claim even if they are not responsible, is only done by good insurers around here.

 

[moburkes]

My insurer is pretty bad (Preferred Mutual in NY) and simply denied my claim based on the standard policy(which is how it is nowadays everywhere when insuring a home) never covers 'man made earth movement'. Since a court case in 2005, insurers have made this rule a default, so no one is insured anymore for that risk nor is it insurable in any othe way.

The insurer did not bother to help out otherwise. Such a 'concierge' type of assistance, to help in one's claim even if they are not responsible, is only done by good insurers around here.

They are not going to help. The contract you signed does not require them to do so and they are not going to incur legal expenses on your behalf when they won't be reimbursed.

You could have purchased earthquake coverage, so it IS an option that is available.

 

[ecmst12]

A bad faith claim is something you can only file against YOUR OWN insurance company. Only your own insurance company has a duty to deal in good faith with you. A 3rd party carrier does not have any such duty. You will need to file suit against the liable parties, and their insurance companies will provide for their defense. MA does recognize Joint and Several liability - so once a judgement is ordered, you can pursue EITHER or BOTH defendents for the full amount.

I would not advise doing this pro se though. It is definitely going to be messy.

 

[JustAPal00]

I've never been licensed in MA, but earthquake is usually excluded.

This isn't a true earthquake(natural disaster). This is man made. If my next door neighbors water heater breaks and water seeps through my basement wall causing damage it's not considered a flood.

 

[JustAPal00]

My insurer is pretty bad (Preferred Mutual in NY) and simply denied my claim based on the standard policy(which is how it is nowadays everywhere when insuring a home) never covers 'man made earth movement'. Since a court case in 2005, insurers have made this rule a default, so no one is insured anymore for that risk nor is it insurable in any othe way.

The insurer did not bother to help out otherwise. Such a 'concierge' type of assistance, to help in one's claim even if they are not responsible, is only done by good insurers around here.

The "Earth movement" exclusion was meant to cover "natural" shifting of earth. Man made is not included, in fact there are several recent court cases in which companies were forced to cover such claims. Here's one I found in your own state. New York Court of Appeals makes decision