MiamiCuse wrote:

>
> "dadiOH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:R_rDk.645$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > MiamiCuse wrote:
> >
> > > The AC tech told me the new air handler will fit in the same
> > > space. I specifically told him to make sure the unit he orders
> > > will fit and I don't want to have to cut any rafters, and when
> > > they were done, they cut two of my rafters out!!!
> >
> > You told him not to cut, he did. So why are you fixing them? BTW,
> > they are trusses, not rafteers.
>
> I told him to leave along ANY wood framing, ANY - trusses, rafters,
> joists, bottom plates etc...I said the only thing he can cut is sheet
> rock and furring strips for the ceiling sheet rock.
>
> He said no problem.
>
> I am so furious.

Channel that fury.

Do you know any attorneys? It would be worth asking them how to handle
the situation and what they'd charge to write a nasty letter to the
doofus.

Have you talked to him about what he did? Does he act sorry, hang his
head, and offer to fix it? What about his boss? Give them a chance to
do the right thing, then have your attorney write that letter.

--
Steve Bell
New Life Home Improvement
Arlington, TX

On Sep 27, 10:52*pm, Red Green <postmas...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "SteveBell" <resp...@online.newsgroup.invalid> wrote in news:gbmosp$fo7$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>
>
> > MiamiCuse wrote:
>
> >> "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >>news:R_rDk.645$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > MiamiCuse wrote:
>
> >> > > The AC tech told me the new air handler will fit in the same
> >> > > space. *I specifically told him to make sure the unit he orders
> >> > > will fit and I don't want to have to cut any rafters, and when
> >> > > they were done, they cut two of my rafters out!!!
>
> >> > You told him not to cut, he did. So why are you fixing them? *BTW,
> >> > they *are trusses, not rafteers.
>
> >> I told him to leave along ANY wood framing, ANY - trusses, rafters,
> >> joists, bottom plates etc...I said the only thing he can cut is sheet
> >> rock and furring strips for the ceiling sheet rock.
>
> >> He said no problem.
>
> >> I am so furious.
>
> > Channel that fury.
>
> > Do you know any attorneys? It would be worth asking them how to handle
> > the situation and what they'd charge to write a nasty letter to the
> > doofus.
>
> > Have you talked to him about what he did? Does he act sorry, hang his
> > head, and offer to fix it? What about his boss? Give them a chance to
> > do the right thing, then have your attorney write that letter.
>
> Attorney$ cost whether you are right or wrong. I bet he could use the
> system itself.
>
> I'm betting to do anything to a truss you need a permit. Did they get a
> permit? No. What inspector would have signed off on that?! Call the city
> inspections dept. Ask if a permit is needed to cut a truss for some attic
> HVAC work. OK, done with inpsection dept.
>
> WRITE, (I repeat, WRITE) the HVAC place. Send it certified with a return
> receipt request. Tell them you want copies of the permit and final
> inspection with specifics on cutting your trusses. If they say they did
> do it legit then you should be able to verify with permits/inspections
> dept records. If you found they lied about that then you write again,
> same terms, You want whatever it takes them to get you a PE statement
> signed off and stamped with a seal in 30 days. If you don't get it you
> will begin to resolve through the permits and inspections department.
> This will get their attention since an issue of this type would affect
> their business to get future permits (if they ever get them at all).
>
> IF the OP paid by credit card that would be great. A second parallel
> attack on the hack. WRITE the credit card company IMMEDIATELY and dispute
> the charges. Hopefully OP has not paid those charges yet. Still may have
> recourse.
>
> I think there's a lot the OP can do at this point without the courts with
> promising results at little or no cost except for his time. I'd say worth
> it. Between getting an PE to come out (field visit fee), drawing up
> approves doc, then contractors fee to repair, easily a grand. Pure guess
> and probably conservative. It could very well end up a legal issue anyway
> of course.

Well I have made calls to the place and now it's a phone game with
them, "the manager will call me back..." and nothing.

I am not sure what I can do now realistically. I made a mistake of
not writing this into the contract, and have since out of frustration
and panic did some work myself to "fix" it so I am sure they will say
they did something but I did something too...a mess basically.

Thanks.

On Sep 29, 8:10*pm, Red Green <postmas...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> IF they respond, you can bet once they see pulled plates they will say any
> gusset and 90% of lumber work needed is because of that. And that they
> could have rectified the problem without an engineer or extensive work in
> an hour. Maybe (big one) offer you a ****-ant couple of hundred bucks. Last
> one who touches anything "owns it" from then on whether it be your attic,a
> software program or a car motor. After viewing it (if they do), I doubt
> they would touch it at this point.
>
> Hate to be so pessimistic but that is the reality from my Mr Nobody wanna-
> be world. Hopefully I am all wet with paranoia. I love to see someone
> respond to this and say Red Green is full of **** and here's a resolution
> be it a rectification or legal directive.

Can I think say you're full of **** even if I agree with you?

I think it's even a darker picture than you're painting. The OP now
has modified the structure of his house (with help) without going
through engineering and permitting. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if
a hurricane does blow through and there is damage to the roof the
insurance company would not pay out.

R

Red Green wrote:
....

> Hate to be so pessimistic but that is the reality from my Mr Nobody wanna-
> be world. Hopefully I am all wet with paranoia. I love to see someone
> respond to this and say Red Green is full of **** and here's a resolution
> be it a rectification or legal directive.
....

Well, I'll step up...you're fos

While it would have been better the HVAC supplier got a fitting air
handler or made a modification rather than the cut, aiu the description
only two widely separated trusses were cut.

In all likelihood it could be left as is and never be a problem, but the
modification noted below to add a header across the adjacent trusses and
replacing the cut chord will work just fine.

I'm also not in the camp of the other "sky is falling" posters on some
dire consequence of insurance or other issues at a future sale time,
etc., ...

It's great drama, but not much more than that...

--

On Sep 30, 9:51*am, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> Red Green wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Hate to be so pessimistic but that is the reality from my Mr Nobody wanna-
> > be world. Hopefully I am all wet with paranoia. I love to see someone
> > respond to this and say Red Green is full of **** and here's a resolution
> > be it a rectification or legal directive.
>
> ...
>
> Well, I'll step up...you're fos
>
> While it would have been better the HVAC supplier got a fitting air
> handler or made a modification rather than the cut, aiu the description
> only two widely separated trusses were cut.
>
> In all likelihood it could be left as is and never be a problem, but the
> modification noted below to add a header across the adjacent trusses and
> replacing the cut chord will work just fine.
>
> I'm also not in the camp of the other "sky is falling" posters on some
> dire consequence of insurance or other issues at a future sale time,
> etc., ...
>
> It's great drama, but not much more than that...

Indeed. We should be congratulating the OP on having reduced the dead
load on the building by the weight of the removed truss members.

I'm curious how you determine risk. The OP's house is in an hurricane
alley. I was under the impression that no one really knew exactly
where, when and how destructive a particular hurricane will be. It
sounds as if you have some advance word that the OP's house is safe.
As a regular I'm sure you are aware that the OP has been posting about
his trials and tribulations as he progresses through the repairs and
remodeling of his house. I am not sure what other modifications were
made, and whether they were seat-of-the-pants or permitted. There are
simply too many variables to say he doesn't have to worry. It might
be just a viewpoint thing - it's his money at risk and not yours.

The risk v reward thing would indicate that the downside is
substantial, while the repair would be fairly minimal - and most
likely should be coming out of someone else's pocket. Even if the OP
does a _perfect_ repair, the insurance company would look to weasel
out of paying out. The modified truss gives them an easy out.

R

RicodJour wrote:
....
> ... the insurance company would look to weasel
> out of paying out. The modified truss gives them an easy out.

BS...

--

dpb wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> ...
>> ... the insurance company would look to weasel
>> out of paying out. The modified truss gives them an easy out.
>
> BS...

Sorry, second line got erased inadvertently...

Can you or anybody else find any evidence of such minor modification
(post repair) actually being the basis for a claim rejection?

--

On Sep 30, 2:29*pm, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> > RicodJour wrote:
> > ...
> >> ... the insurance company would look to weasel
> >> out of paying out. *The modified truss gives them an easy out.
>
> > BS...
>
> Sorry, second line got erased inadvertently...

It's OK - senior moments can happen to anyone.

> Can you or anybody else find any evidence of such minor modification
> (post repair) actually being the basis for a claim rejection?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...11.htm?print=1
That's even a flimsier excuse for denying a claim, but denied it was.

This one
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...3-2051&invol=1
shows that an insurance company will walk away from damage resulting
from a deliberate act of construction (in the linked to case, it
involved cutting trusses, and of course there are some differences -
the thrust still addresses your request).

It may not make sense to you, but it does happen. You do seem to be
pretty casual about the OP's risk. The OP is the one who mentioned
his concern about upcoming hurricanes.
"However, the reality of the situation is, I need to fix this problem,
as I don't know if another hurricane may hit south Florida some time
in the next month while I sit on this, and that's why I tried to fix
this last week after I saw what he did. I have to implement a remedy
and worry about collection of that cost later."
The OP is the one who is concerned about a hurricane damaging their
house.

To the OP: Even if you're in a hurry, you should follow the process.
By taking matters into your own hands and starting the repair on your
own you've "bought" the situation as others have pointed out. It will
probably be much harder to get satisfaction. Sending registered
letters, getting quotes and informing the AC company of intended
actions and dates makes future actions (small claims, lawsuit, repair)
easier later.

R

"RicodJour" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

> Can you or anybody else find any evidence of such minor modification
> (post repair) actually being the basis for a claim rejection?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...11.htm?print=1
That's even a flimsier excuse for denying a claim, but denied it was.

This one
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...3-2051&invol=1
shows that an insurance company will walk away from damage resulting
from a deliberate act of construction (in the linked to case, it
involved cutting trusses, and of course there are some differences -
the thrust still addresses your request).

************************************************** ******************************************

These two cases do not answer the question. There were violations of law,
poorly designed trusses from the outset (not a modification) There may be
other factors
"Alfa Insurance officials would not comment, citing client confidentiality"


In the second case, it is more than just roof trusses, but other workmanship
and damage. Sounds like a contractual issue.

"During the installation process, Sigmund cut three roof trusses. Paulan
alleges that the cutting of the roof trusses rendered the home structurally
unsafe, prevented the completion of shingling the roof, left the home not
properly protected from the weather, and as a result, the home could not be
occupied for a significant period. Paulan claims that Sigmund breached the
terms of the written proposal by failing to perform work in a good and
workmanlike manner."