[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I believe the city at least owes him the costs relating to restoring his property to the condition prior to the damage they (their employee) inflicted on his property. But why there are comments saying OP would be on the hook for getting his own insurance to address the rest of the replacement costs makes no sense to me. Maybe OP's insurance corresponds with the city/the city's insurance people, but I don't believe they should be paying the costs here. The city/the city's insurance should be doing that.

OP's fence was fine until they effed it up. The city doesn't get to just run off with only the costs of a few new fence boards and a little paint and then you charge the rest to your own insurance.

It won't be exact and yes they don't owe him a completely new fence, but you can't exactly just say, "It's an old fence and basically worthless." in the same way you can't just say, "Your car is older and only the door is damaged. Thereby we owe you barely anything." Often times, a body shop will get a new part and then there's the labour and perhaps additional costs for addressing structural issues that weren't there before.

Again, the City is responsible for the actual value of the damaged property, they don't owe him the costs of putting up a new fence.

It doesn't matter if we like it or not that's the way it goes.