Couple Says Oregon City Should Pay For Sewer Mess

January 22, 2008

  • January 24, 2008 at 2:22 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Roche will lose this case. He has the burden of proof to establish the city’s negligence,if any. Based on the facts provided, he can’t do that. Anyone could have dropped a piece of wood that size into a sewer. Furthermore, most people who leave their home for an extended time have enough sense to have someone check on it periodically. Had they done that, the damage would have been mitigated. Most folks don’t store family heirlooms and their bible on the basement floor.

  • January 24, 2008 at 2:54 am
    Reverse it says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think your wrong.

    If City Hall had a backup that damaged the entire building and:
    -the system was owned and operated by a private contractor
    -the blame was unknown as this case

    You can be sure the city would come after the contractor.

  • January 24, 2008 at 4:02 am
    Advocate for Insured says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What if it was determined the city was negligent? Can the city’s insuror deny coverage on account of “pollution”?

  • January 24, 2008 at 4:04 am
    appalled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Boy, Dread, you sure are a judgemental a-hole. They left town for a death in the family, not a vacation in Cuernavaca – most of us don’t think too clearly at those times. And your comments about where they store their treasured items? Maybe the basement is the only storage space they have – maybe the upstairs rooms are filled with children with snotty attitudes like yours – who knows? All I know is that that their situation stinks and you’re a jerk.

  • January 24, 2008 at 4:25 am
    John Rich says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    For what it’s worth, here are my 2 cents. The city may or may not be found negligent for not maintaining the open flow of water through the piping, even though they didn’t put the 4×4 in the drain. The reasonable person (municipality) principal may be applied, but I am not sure to whether they may be held to a higher standard of care.

    However, under the definition of pollution in virtually every GL policy, this is clearly a pollution claim. It is a “solid, liquid gaseous or thermal irritant” and I am not aware of any state that does not consider raw sewage a pollutant. The claim may be denied by the insurance carrier, but the city may still be liable.

    As a long-time underwriter of pollution insurance, the backup of sewers and drains question is far-and-away the most asked question I receive from municipalities’ risk managers and brokers. This is a type of claim that I have seen environmental insurers pay out for contractors who laid the piping, engineers who didn’t design adequate flow or pump contingencies and for municipalities who failed to maintain the system.

  • January 25, 2008 at 6:28 am
    Me says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    SORRY IF THAT OFFENDS ANYONE BUT I HAD TO GO THERE – LOL – SOUNDS LIKE THEY GOT THE CRAPPY END OF THE DEAL!
    Happy Weekend!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*