Landscapers damage

[xylene]

How interesting that an HVAC guy, his guy, is recommended spending more money.

 

[LdiJ]

He told me because the system is 18 years old, it was "recomended" by the HVAC company that the inside air handler be replaced as well. I'm a fireman and work with a guy that has an AC business, and he said it would not be a requirement. Recommended sure, but not required.

Which again, is why the landscaper's insurance didn't pay for it. You are absolutely NOT liable in any way. You cannot stop him from suing you if he gets that stupid, but he won't win. He is hoping that you will be stupid enough to pay him.

 

[Whoops2u]

Upon further reflection, I am also going to take exception to this statement. Any release that the neighbor gave to the OP's landscaper likely wouldn't bar a successful suit by the neighbor against the OP. It would simply be a release in favor of the landscaper...

You're right again. Pedantically, no. ("likely" wouldn't bar) But, right in general.

In Florida, a settlement against one tortfeasor does not relieve another of liability even if the secondary liability is vicarious as we have here.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.041.html
768.041 Release or covenant not to sue.—
(1) A release or covenant not to sue as to one tortfeasor for property damage to, personal injury of, or the wrongful death of any person shall not operate to release or discharge the liability of any other tortfeasor who may be liable for the same tort or death.
(2) At trial, if any defendant shows the court that the plaintiff, or any person lawfully on her or his behalf, has delivered a release or covenant not to sue to any person, firm, or corporation in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shall set off this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment and enter judgment accordingly.
(3) The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court shall not be made known to the jury.

Florida Tomato Packers v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1974
We do not agree. It has been held that § 768.041, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., applies to all tort feasors, whether joint or several, including vicarious tort feasors. Hertz Corporation v. Hellens, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 73; Mathis v. Virgin, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 897, cert. den., Fla. 1965, 174 So.2d 30; Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App. 1971, 247 So.2d 727, cert. dis., Fla. 1972, 262 So.2d 658.

 

[pac72]

He told me because the system is 18 years old, it was "recomended" by the HVAC company that the inside air handler be replaced as well. I'm a fireman and work with a guy that has an AC business, and he said it would not be a requirement. Recommended sure, but not required.

actually it would be required to replace the indoor coil when replacing the outdoor condenser, the old unit would be an r22 unit. which it became illegal to manufacture r22 units 5-6 yrs ago, the new condenser will be a r410 a unit not compatable with the existing r22 coil, , so the neighbor had to pay the additional $ to upgrade to a compatable indoor unit..

actually a hell of a deal for them getting a BRAND NEW central air system for $1500

 

[HRZ]

IS not the value of the damaged property it's depreciated value plus the labor to put in a new one ? The fact that equivalent cooling capacity models are obsolete for technical and legal reasons is not the core issue .

 

[xylene]

Condensing units rated for r410 work fine with r22 evaporators and those evaporators can be modified for r410. There is no fundamental incompatibility, and mixed systems are common, especially given the wear and tear on an external component is much more substantial.

 

[JakobOhio]

actually it would be required to replace the indoor coil when replacing the outdoor condenser, the old unit would be an r22 unit. which it became illegal to manufacture r22 units 5-6 yrs ago, the new condenser will be a r410 a unit not compatable with the existing r22 coil, , so the neighbor had to pay the additional $ to upgrade to a compatable indoor unit..

actually a hell of a deal for them getting a BRAND NEW central air system for $1500

r22 is not illegal, it is being phased out and refrigerant is becoming high cost (over 100/lb for residential) You can still find condensing units all day R22 and you condensing unit can see be manufactured for R22. You have a few more years before it becomes illegal

You are correct those that the 410 unit is not compatible

 

[pac72]

well, im in hvac and and we cant get any r22 units here.. even the "dry" r22 units aren't available anymore,
and your statement on the mfg of the r22 units is wrong.. they are no longer made due to the govt mandated phase out of r22 and equipment. aka the montreal protocall

 

[Whoops2u]

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/residential_air_conditioning_and_the_phaseout_of_hcfc-22_what_you_need_to_know.pdf

 

[JakobOhio]

well, im in hvac and and we cant get any r22 units here.. even the "dry" r22 units aren't available anymore,
and your statement on the mfg of the r22 units is wrong.. they are no longer made due to the govt mandated phase out of r22 and equipment. aka the montreal protocall

that is interesting because I am in charge of commercial retail HVAC/R and I have spent millions on R22 units this year,