big rumour running round here

Leo G_99

our good friends at Bradford White, and their Canaidian distributor, Emco, are being sued. The story I hear is that the lawyer is going after both of these fine companies, because a BW hot water tank leaked before its' warranty was up!

Leo G

Timco

depending on how they handeled the damage it caused, sounds absurd. Does this mean I can sue Ford?

T

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

the only

The only winner out of this case are the lawyers, wether they win or not....

Unknown

It would be funny to listen in...

Lawyer,"Can you tell the court the number of water heaters that eventually leak?"

Water heater expert, "All of them".

Lawyer, "What did the plaintiff do to prepare for this eventual certainty?"

.........

Noel

ScottMP

Thats

pretty funny Noel.

This must be a daily acourance.

Scott

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

A.J.

law abuse?

I think it is pretty sad.

Kevin O. Pulver

Clever Noel,

Unfortunately, the offense attorney will probably use the same strategy. "Why did the water heater company send out a product they KNEW would eventually fail- as every one of them eventually does?"
Now if I were the judge, I'd say, "Both of you bottom feeders get out of my court before I have you shot. And I want a written apology to this fine company AND, you're gonna pay their next months advertising expenses as well."
Kevin

Eric_25

scum of the earth

These people that go around suing everybody for anything and the lawyers who encourage them are the scum of the earth. Like the one who sued because McDonalds served hot coffee you know she would have been the first one complaining if they served her cold coffee. There was one in NH who sued Ford because her 1980 something Ford escort did not have an airbag but a Lincoln Town car of the same year was available with an airbag. Ford said at the time it cost about $5,000.00 to put an airbag in a car. do you think this woman would have paid an extra $5,000.00 for an Escort with an airbag, the whole car new was probably only $5,000. Sorry about the rant this is a sore subject around here.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Dan_15

Why do you immediately jump to conclusions and blame plaintiffs and their lawyers? You dont really know any of the facts. That is what a lawsuit is all about--uncovering the facts.

BW warrants their glass lined tanks against leakage under normal operating circumstances. A number of things are excluded from that warranty, which are basically categorized as improper operating circumstances (e.g., poor venting, lack of combustion air, etc.) or not relevant to the operation of the WH (e.g., water odor) or ordinary wear and tear (e.g., replacement of anode rods).

If the tank failed during the warranty period under normal operating circumstances, then BW is certainly responsible for repairing or replacing the tank under warranty. The owner of the WH has a contractual right to it. I can only assume that BW disputes the warranty coverage because they feel that one of the warranty exclusions was triggered under the circumstances. That is a factual determination. BW says the WH was not operated under normal circumstances, and the owner says that it was.

How do you resolve this factual dispute? Do we meet at high noon at the OK Corral? Do we cut the WH in half? No, in our country factual disputes are resolved by a jury of our peers--you and I.

We are all entitled to enforce our contractual rights. This is not a made-up situation of coffee being too hot, or some other kind of abuse. There may be a time when you want to take advantage of it, too. It may turn out that BW's view of the warranty is factually correct. It may not. BW made the warranty and the owner relied on it when purchasing the WH, and the owner is entitled to test it. Conversely, BW is entitled to test the owner's view of the factual circumstances. Don't be so quick to resent a process that you may not fully understand or appreciate. Nothing is ever as it seems. That's all I am saying.

No I am not a lawyer.

Gene_3

it would be nice

to have all the details, if anyone finds out more please post them.

When it comes to our equipment in HVACR lawyers know nothing, neither do plaintiffs, judges or jurors.

It could be that the persons relief valve rotted shut and the tank exploded and damaged the home, if so that would be lack of maintenance , not a warranty issue

even electric w/h's need maintenance, not as much but the relief needs to be tested and the temp control checked out and electrical connections and it should be drained of sediment{flushed out}.

It is all clearly spelled out in the INSTALLATION MANUAL

Leo

Law Suits

Dan said,"Why do you immediately jump to conclusions and blame plaintiffs and their lawyers? You dont really know any of the facts. That is what a lawsuit is all about--uncovering the facts."

In my police days I had a guy with the sun in his eyes on a motorcycle cut right in front of a tractor trailer, he lived but has one leg shorter than the other now. I cited him and won in court. Now comes the law suit, he sues the trucker for physical damages. His lawyer tells me (this is in Mass) that even thought I cited him and he was wrong to cut in front of the truck if they can prove the trucker was speeding or doing anything wrong they could win a settlement. On the criminal side you have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that something happened. On the civil suit side you have to prove a "preponderance of the evidence" which is a lesser standard. In other words basically if you can tip the scales in your favor you win.

Leo

Dan_15

I hear you; lawsuits really do suck. I would not wish a lawsuit on my worst enemy. After all your emotional energy and bank account is drained, you are left feeling hollow and helpless even with a victory.

But even in a less adversarial forum than court, like an arbitration proceeding, or binding mediation, you are still trying to uncover the facts and allocate responsibility fairly and justly.

Think about your example: maybe the truck was really speeding 5 or 10 mph over the limit. Maybe if not for the truck speeding, the biker's injuries would have been less severe. Doubless, the biker is at fault, but there are reasons we try and set speed limits and road rules.

Dont get me wrong, life is never that black and white, but Im just saying that there is a tendency to look at such issues through a cloudly lens. Often times, there is validity to both sides' cases. We use our system of dispute resolution to try and allocate responsibility as best as we can. Dont let the abusive cases sour the process for you.

J.C.A._3

Short case in point....

I was hit "head on", by a vehicle coming the other way.

I showed the officer where my skid marks started on the wooden bridge...as the oncoming vehicle was COMPLETELY on the wrong side of the line when the impact occurred. I was cited !

When the court took the case, it had already cost me quite a bit...but my insurance company stood their ground, and eventually I was proved to be RIGHT.

Key phrase in this case was sending a letter to my insurance company to "appear and defend, on my behalf".

If you're in business, you have insurance. If there is such a stupid question or lawsuit pointed at YOU...for reckless and unfollowed procedure, I believe it is in their (the insurance company's) best interest to take the case, AND countersue for their own financial costs and time to prove that YOU are NOT in the wrong. Isn't that why you bought the insurance in the first place?

Lawyers fall just beneath insurance salesman on my list of the lowest forms of life...but they have a point...AND... a job to do when you sign the papers.(other than collecting the premiums!). JMHO. Chris

John_108

Lawsuits

As they always say "You can sue for anything". My brother was sued for witnessing an accident. The laywer made a case that if my brother was not sitting at the traffic light waiting for it to turn green then the car that his client hit would not have stopped and would have ran the red light and that his client would not have hit him. And yes the court awarded him $5000.00 from my brother. Go figure. Insurance would not appeal said it would cost them more than to pay.

frank_25

Lawyers

Here is the way I look at it...If people don't agree w/ one another, go directly to a judge, w/out a bottom feeder. Tell your story in normal Americanise, and let the judge deceide. These guys [attornys]are a self-perpetuating plague that we brought upon ourselves. Get rid of them, save a bundle, don't worry, be happy.

Maine Doug_47

Hmmmm

My son is a lawyer. He represents kids with bad parents. Perhaps a day in court with him when he is representing a little girl that has been abused for a few years by her daddy might change your perspective a bit.

>>>>These guys [attornys]are a self-perpetuating plague that we brought upon ourselves. Get rid of them, save a bundle, don't worry, be happy.<<<<

Josh_10

Well Doug I think your son is what a lawyer should be. My grandfather was also a great attorney representing real estate clients. These tasks require a lawyer. To argue the law and give council.

You have to admit though the lawyers referenced here are bottom feeders. There is no law or justice sought out in this case, just money.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

This content has been removed.