City wrecked my fence, need quotes for the claim

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That's fine I ain't selling it.

When one party damages another party's property they only need paying them for the value of the property that is damaged, not for the replacement of the property that is damaged.

The City has asked the OP to get quotes to repair the damage. Not to have an appraisal of the value of the fence.

[btimbit]

UCB is right, but where people are probably getting confused is that a lot of the time they won't bother with all the extra steps, they just cover the replacement cost to be done with it. But they don't have too

[The Yen Man]

If the City doesn't end up paying everything to fix it, I'd just take the story to the media. I'm sure that will get the City to act pretty quick. If you have the footage that clearly shows the dump truck damaged your fence, why not? There's pretty much no argument to be had with the City.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That's fine I ain't selling it.

When one party damages another party's property they only need paying them for the value of the property that is damaged, not for the replacement of the property that is damaged.

Damn, good faith negotiating is not a thing with you.

[Titan2]

It's not a lottery.

They wreck a portion of your fence, they fix that portion of the fence back to the state it was in prior to the damage. That is the entire basis of tort law.

If that is not possible for some reason they may decide to replace the whole fence, but unlikely. A good example is when I had a claim for the hardwood in my house. they replaced the entire main floor because it would have been too hard to match. This is unlikely to be the case for a fence.

Yes, a few boards and some nails, paint and labour are likely what we are talking about, without having seen the damage. If he drove along the whole back of the fence, then maybe a different story but still the same result.

The City Claims dept. does handle these small matters. Legal gets involved as the dollars go up but very unlikely in a small case like this.

I think UCB is thinking of a situation where there is a policy in place. For example, my roof needs replacing but the insurance company has a policy that the value of the roof decreases every year to the point that if it is over 5 years old the value, less the deductible is not worth making a claim. In this case, there is no policy (contract) in place so I don't see how they would get away with only providing a portion of the value of repairing the fence. Otherwise, I am not sure what he could be referring to.

And yes, the City is self-insured and the impact on your taxes is so small as to be immaterial. Just imagine the homeowner's liability policy the City would have to carry. Now think about the number of vehicles it owns that need insurance. The cost would be absolutely astronomical to have an outside insurance policy. And yes there are policies in place for excess claims but they kick in at millions of dollars of losses which no claims ever get anywhere close to. It is a big company. Self-insured is the only way to go.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The City has asked the OP to get quotes to repair the damage. Not to have an appraisal of the value of the fence.

The general approach to paying for something like the this is to get a replacement cost and apply depreciation.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Damn, good faith negotiating is not a thing with you.

I didn't make the rules.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The general approach to paying for something like the this is to get a replacement cost and apply depreciation.



I didn't make the rules.

These quotes aren’t for replacement cost. We are talking about a broken fence which can be repaired.

Are you suggesting that the city won’t pay the costs to repair the fence?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

These quotes aren’t for replacement cost. We are talking about a broken fence which can be repaired.

Are you suggesting that the city won’t pay the costs to repair the fence?

Any repair to the cost of the fence will most likely result in new materials being used. The City is not responsible to pay the costs of the new materials.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I think UCB is thinking of a situation where there is a policy in place. For example, my roof needs replacing but the insurance company has a policy that the value of the roof decreases every year to the point that if it is over 5 years old the value, less the deductible is not worth making a claim. In this case, there is no policy (contract) in place so I don't see how they would get away with only providing a portion of the value of repairing the fence. Otherwise, I am not sure what he could be referring to.

No I am specifically speaking about when a policy/contract isn't in place.

You said:

They wreck a portion of your fence, they fix that portion of the fence back to the state it was in prior to the damage. That is the entire basis of tort law.

If this fence is 10 years old, you can't put it back to being a 10 year old fence. All you need to do is pay the value of a 10 year old fence, which traditionally is done through depreciating the value of a new fence.


Let me put it this way.

If we replace the word fence with house and a city vehicle drove into the OP's house causing damage that required an insurance claim to be presented. Say $50,000 or so all in.

Do we think the City pays all $50,000 or so back to the OP's insurance company?

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Titan2

It's not a lottery.

They wreck a portion of your fence, they fix that portion of the fence back to the state it was in prior to the damage. That is the entire basis of tort law.

If that is not possible for some reason they may decide to replace the whole fence, but unlikely. A good example is when I had a claim for the hardwood in my house. they replaced the entire main floor because it would have been too hard to match. This is unlikely to be the case for a fence.

Yes, a few boards and some nails, paint and labour are likely what we are talking about, without having seen the damage. If he drove along the whole back of the fence, then maybe a different story but still the same result.

The City Claims dept. does handle these small matters. Legal gets involved as the dollars go up but very unlikely in a small case like this.

I think UCB is thinking of a situation where there is a policy in place. For example, my roof needs replacing but the insurance company has a policy that the value of the roof decreases every year to the point that if it is over 5 years old the value, less the deductible is not worth making a claim. In this case, there is no policy (contract) in place so I don't see how they would get away with only providing a portion of the value of repairing the fence. Otherwise, I am not sure what he could be referring to.

And yes, the City is self-insured and the impact on your taxes is so small as to be immaterial. Just imagine the homeowner's liability policy the City would have to carry. Now think about the number of vehicles it owns that need insurance. The cost would be absolutely astronomical to have an outside insurance policy. And yes there are policies in place for excess claims but they kick in at millions of dollars of losses which no claims ever get anywhere close to. It is a big company. Self-insured is the only way to go.

Slight semantics, but I think some posters are using replace/repair interchangeably. Similar to how you repair certain cars after a collision and they use new parts for the car (not parts aged to the car like something ripped out of pick and pull), I think there's a slight confusion about the usage of replace/repair here. You'd have to replace certain parts to repair the fence.

The slightly odd aspect to the whole thing is that it seems like the city employee wrecked the fence and drove off. OP has cameras that prove it was the city employee that obliterated his fence so he can chase them to demand they pay. IF he had not had that evidence though, then yes he may have to go through his own insurance to deal with it or pay out of pocket, but this is not the situation here for OP.

I've been saying from the beginning that the city would have to restore it to the state it was in just prior to the damage. Whether that's just cosmetic or also includes foundational etc. is the question that the rest of us do not know.

I was thinking that if the city damaged like half a dozen boards, that they should be repair/replacing those boards plus painting it and labour (assuming no structural damage, but if there's structural damage that requires remediation, the city should be on the hook for that too). But IMO the painting should be potentially the entire length of that edge of fence if those boards cannot be blended to look the same as the rest of the fence (ie: state it was in before). This suggestion is only a bit of extra paint and labour, not full on new wood posts and boards in places where the city had not damaged.

The only reason why maybe I think the city could potentially be on the hook to replace the whole damn thing and perhaps discount it as per UCB's situation, is if somehow it's not possible or it is more expensive to repair that section than it is to just redo the whole thing (although in a fence that seems unlikely). Then, since you're technically getting a brand new fence, you kinda split the cost with the city and they are on the hook for a portion that is slightly more than a typical repair because they triggered some work that had to be done that wouldn't have had to be done if they had not wrecked his fence. But I don't really think what UCB is describing is the situation for OP.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No I am specifically speaking about when a policy/contract isn't in place.

You said:



If this fence is 10 years old, you can't put it back to being a 10 year old fence. All you need to do is pay the value of a 10 year old fence, which traditionally is done through depreciating the value of a new fence.


Let me put it this way.

If we replace the word fence with house and a city vehicle drove into the OP's house causing damage that required an insurance claim to be presented. Say $50,000 or so all in.

Do we think the City pays all $50,000 or so back to the OP's insurance company?

I really don't have any idea what you are getting at. The answer is yes, in your scenario. And if they drove over grandmas vase they would have to replace that too. And if for some reason you had your house/fence made out of teak or maple or something they have to replace with that level of material, not just normal pine or whatever.

You take your victim as you find them and you have to put them back to the condition they were in prior to your actions as best as possible. At least that is how I learned it in law school and six and a half years as a litigator for the City.

They need to provide him with a fence that looks like a city truck did not run into it. They do not get a cost for replacing the fence and then depreciate it for the age of the fence. That would only happen in a policy situation like the roof in my earlier example.

To use your car example with a slight change, they fix the car or they give you the value of the car. You don't get a new car, you get the value of the car you had. Same as the fence. (To clarify this is closer to what you are saying. You would get what your car would be worth on the day it is wrecked not when it was new.)

Let's use the roof as a different example. Let's say they somehow cause a 10 x 10 hole in your roof. Do they have to replace the whole roof? No. They have to fix the hole as close as possible to how it was. Maybe, maybe, you can convince a judge that a non-matching roof is terrible and you should be reimbursed the full cost to replace the whole roof. However, they may say we will give you X to fix the hole and then you can decide to do the rest of the roof at your own cost and at the same time. But they are not going to say, we will fix the hole for $X but because your roof is 20 years old, after depreciating the value of the roof, you actually don't get your hole fixed. That makes no sense at all.

In the OPs situation, this is a chequebook case. Show the video and they get out the chequebook. They want quotes to justify how much to write the check to their superiors. The amounts we are talking are immaterial to an entity the size of the City.

[Shazam]

I'm fairly absolutely positively sure the city will pay for the replacement cost of the fence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I really don't have any idea what you are getting at. The answer is yes, in your scenario. And if they drove over grandmas vase they would have to replace that too. And if for some reason you had your house/fence made out of teak or maple or something they have to replace with that level of material, not just normal pine or whatever.

Sorry you are wrong.

The City would absolutely not be on for the $50,000 costs.

They don't owe the replacement, they owe the value of the items they damaged not the cost to replacement them.

You take your victim as you find them and you have to put them back to the condition they were in prior to your actions as best as possible. At least that is how I learned it in law school and six and a half years as a litigator for the City.

But you can't put them into a the position they were with an older fence.

They are in a better position with a new fence.

They need to provide him with a fence that looks like a city truck did not run into it. They do not get a cost for replacing the fence and then depreciate it for the age of the fence. That would only happen in a policy situation like the roof in my earlier example.

To use your car example with a slight change, they fix the car or they give you the value of the car. You don't get a new car, you get the value of the car you had. Same as the fence. (To clarify this is closer to what you are saying. You would get what your car would be worth on the day it is wrecked not when it was new.)

Let's use the roof as a different example. Let's say they somehow cause a 10 x 10 hole in your roof. Do they have to replace the whole roof? No. They have to fix the hole as close as possible to how it was. Maybe, maybe, you can convince a judge that a non-matching roof is terrible and you should be reimbursed the full cost to replace the whole roof. However, they may say we will give you X to fix the hole and then you can decide to do the rest of the roof at your own cost and at the same time. But they are not going to say, we will fix the hole for $X but because your roof is 20 years old, after depreciating the value of the roof, you actually don't get your hole fixed. That makes no sense at all.

In the OPs situation, this is a chequebook case. Show the video and they get out the chequebook. They want quotes to justify how much to write the check to their superiors. The amounts we are talking are immaterial to an entity the size of the City.

Using vehicles is a poor comparison because there is no such thing as replacement cost insurance on a vehicle (with a caveat or two, sometimes you can get a 2 yr waiver of deprecation).

In one of my previous lives this is what I did, I paid for things that were damaged by us.

Sometimes I paid the full hit, but only if it made business sense for us. Tis might be how the City approaches it, but I've dealt with municipalities across and if there is one thing they like to do it is not pay a penny more than they should.

But mostly I paid the value of what was damaged. Not the cost to repair/replace it. I've been through some ligation on it as well and there was never any discussion of us paying full shot or getting our full shot paid. It was always a depreciated amount.

[Titan2]

Huh. I am wrong. I guess that's that then.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Any repair to the cost of the fence will most likely result in new materials being used. The City is not responsible to pay the costs of the new materials.

In this scenario, what outcome is possible other than the city paying for the repairs? How would they determine the "value" of the fence. It doesn't have a FMV since it can't be sold. Isn't that why they are asking for repair quotes?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

In this scenario, what outcome is possible other than the city paying for the repairs? How would they determine the "value" of the fence. It doesn't have a FMV since it can't be sold. Isn't that why they are asking for repair quotes?

New less depreciation equals the value of the damaged property. This is where arguments, negotiation and sometimes litigation comes in.

Listen I hope the OP gets squared away, and the city may very well pay the full costs, but be clear they are under no obligation to pay the costs to repair the fence, the only need to pay him the value of the items they damaged.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I don’t really get the examples being thrown around.

Garbage truck crashes into my car, they fix my car.
Garbage truck totals my car, I get depreciated value for my car.

But if garbage truck crashes into my house, I get depreciated value for the damage but it doesn’t get fixed? How does that make any sense? Especially on houses which appreciate in value. Unlike cars which are a depreciating asset. Like I get the structure itself has a lifespan but the overall value is higher, so how do I get stuck with a hole in my house and not enough money to fix it? And now I’m stuck with a house that has a hole, not enough money to fix it and my asset is worth less than it was before because it has a giant hole in it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But if garbage truck crashes into my house, I get depreciated value for the damage but it doesn’t get fixed?

this is correct. The party that caused the damage to the property only owes you the costs of that damaged property.

How does that make any sense? Especially on houses which appreciate in value. Unlike cars which are a depreciating asset. Like I get the structure itself has a lifespan but the overall value is higher, so how do I get stuck with a hole in my house and not enough money to fix it? And now I’m stuck with a house that has a hole, not enough money to fix it and my asset is worth less than it was before because it has a giant hole in it.

While houses as a whole appreciate, the individual parts, drywall, shingles, wooden decks, etc have a finite life span.

Whoever is responsible for putting "a hole in your house" is only required to compensate you for the damage/loss you suffered.

Let's say to repair the "hole in your house" you will need new items:
>siding
>sheeting
>vapour barrier
>studs
>insualtion
>drywall
>paint
>etc

All those items that will be used are new. Prior to the "hole in your house" those items were not new. They were old/used.

Clearly, there isn't a market of "used" studs/drywall/siding, etc. So new is used. The party that caused the "hole in your house" isn't responsible for the costs of those new items, they are only responsible for the cost of the items they damaged.

If a house is 40 years old (say Sliver's lakeside pad with no renos) the drywall in that house is 40 years old. If the life of drywall is 80 years (it might be 75 off the top of my head) then whoever put the "hole in your house" only owes 50% of the drywall costs to fix what they damaged.

It is one of the reasons that Replacement Cost insurance is so popular (amongst other reasons).

If you carry replacement cost coverage on your house, that policy would pay to fix the "hole in your house" and then try to recover as much of these costs as they could back from whoever put the "hole in your house".

Trust me on this, in another life I paid damages for properties out company caused and tried to recover those damages that were caused to our properties.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Ok but why does my car get repaired but my house doesn’t? Why not just payout the depreciated cost of a bumper and side panel? Payouts for vehicles, unless totalled, are always to repair the vehicle to previous condition, often using new parts. Why isn’t my house give the same consideration? Or fence in this case I guess.

[GGG]

It depends on what insurance you buy. There are lots of scenarios people aren’t made whole. To reduce Hail claims in Alberta your policy will explicitly state the roof depreciation factor based on age.

On a car if it has significant damage is worth less money then a car that has never been in an accident. Your insurance does not cover the underlying value loss.

Or if you total you car and have a loan for more than the value or prepaid maintenance or warranty those things in general are not paid out. Just the value of the car, you aren’t entitled to the same car or even the ability to purchase the same car, just the underlying depreciated value. Or a lease down payment will screw you over in an accident scenario.