Here's an interesting update on my roof lawsuit...

[Montehall]

well, we haven't actually filed yet, our lawyer is still bickering around with the insurance company.
The insurance company asked for another extension before we file suit, because, they claim that they cannot get in contact with the contractor. No returned calls, his house is vacant (not empty, just vacant), and, oddly enough, the sheriff's office hasn't seen him either.

My lawyer said that if the insurance company can't get in contact, they can just say that he's no longer insured with them, so they won't cover him.

HTF does that work? the insurance company can just say "You know what? we are cancelling your policy today, so the accident that just happened last week, well, you aren't covered." WTF?



But if that happens, a PI will get hired to find him, and we'll sue him directly... and I'm sure I'll see reperations then.

[Sea Six]

I like Pi.

[Montehall]

i like pi.
3.17

(yes, I realize now that I typo'd pi)

[vetterdstr]

If they say he's not covered I'm sure your lawyer is smart enough to ask for a copy of the policy. If they "adjust the coverage dates" of the policy this opens another opportunity to sue the insurance co for fraud. :yesnod:

[Montehall]

If they say he's not covered I'm sure your lawyer is smart enough to ask for a copy of the policy. If they "adjust the coverage dates" of the policy this opens another opportunity to sue the insurance co for fraud. :yesnod:
we already have that.

appearently, the insurance will claim that he "isn't cooperating" with them, and will cancel his policy.

[Sea Six]

3.17

Is that what I think it is?

:eek:


















A slightly bigger pie?

[Flatbush Harry]

Is that what I think it is?

:eek:
















A slightly bigger pie?

He succumbed to the glut.

Har3.14159ishry

[Montehall]

He succumbed to the glut.

Har3.14159ishry
yes, us fatties want bigger pie.


or just follow this
a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
3.14 = 3.17

[Datawiz]

3.17

Or not.

[LMJ]

Does your city not require a performance bond on all contractors working in the city?

LJ

[Montehall]

Does your city not require a performance bond on all contractors working in the city?

LJ
I dunno... I'm sure the lawyer would have let us in on it if it was required.

[LMJ]

I dunno... I'm sure the lawyer would have let us in on it if it was required.

If your lawyer is not into construction lawsuits, he might not know. If you don't live in an incorporated city probably not, but here we have to have a bond to protect the homeowner in these cases. Typically they are for around $25,000.00.
LJ

[CP]

Is that what I think it is?

:eek:


















A slightly bigger pie?

No. THIS is a bigger Pi: 3.14

[Uncle Pervey]

Did you borrow money or get a second mortgage to do the roof repair? If so in some states you can sue the lender of the money if the building contractor is no longer in business or not around. I know this because my Step-Dad lost about 40K during the Savings and Loan meltdown.
Interest rates were in the toilet (like now) his financial advisor told him a good investment was to buy up loans from defunct S&L's. He bought one, it was a second mortgage on a home. He went to the people who borrowed the money and told them to start paying him as he now owned the loan.
He got one payment from them then they stopped paying, he kept calling them and they always gave him a BS story of some kind or another. Finally after 5 months he was served with papers, saying the borrowers were suing him because the windows that they had put in with the second mortgage were faulty. The contractor that had did the install was out of business, the window manufacturer was out of business so under state laws the lien holder was responsible. My Dad's lawyer told him just to walk away and settle with them for the value of the loan because it would cost him a lot more than $40K if he lost the case and legal fees and court costs would eat him alive. He walked away, and fired his financial advisor. :yesnod:

[vetterdstr]

I dunno... I'm sure the lawyer would have let us in on it if it was required.

I believe we talked about contractor bonding in your last thread. :yesnod: