ᐅ Liability / Repair of Damage to Exterior Plaster and Insulation
Created on: 19 Nov 2018 16:22
M
Mari305Hello,
We are building a single-family house with a developer. Yesterday, we noticed two quite large damages on the exterior facade. However, the site manager denies any responsibility and claims the damage must have been caused by an external company that carried out underground utility installation work. They want us to request these companies (Avacon, Telekom, etc.) to repair the damage.
Of course, the damage could just as well have been caused by a company hired by the developer, but I obviously have no way of proving that.
Nevertheless, the developer is obligated to deliver the house free of defects, right? Or am I stuck paying for the damage repairs myself?
We are building a single-family house with a developer. Yesterday, we noticed two quite large damages on the exterior facade. However, the site manager denies any responsibility and claims the damage must have been caused by an external company that carried out underground utility installation work. They want us to request these companies (Avacon, Telekom, etc.) to repair the damage.
Of course, the damage could just as well have been caused by a company hired by the developer, but I obviously have no way of proving that.
Nevertheless, the developer is obligated to deliver the house free of defects, right? Or am I stuck paying for the damage repairs myself?
M
Mottenhausen19 Nov 2018 20:38Mari305 schrieb:
Nevertheless, the developer is obliged to hand over a house without defects to us. "Yes and no." This is unfortunately a misconception, based on the way general contractors and others like to advertise it as if that were the case.
It’s very complicated. The civil engineer was working on your behalf, so the developer can actually deflect responsibility if the civil engineer caused the issue. The question is, who actually caused it? You cannot prove who it was, but your developer also cannot prove it wasn’t them. It’s one statement against another.
How serious is the problem? I’m afraid pursuing legal action might not be worthwhile.
F
Frank Hartung29 Nov 2018 17:23The first question is who commissioned the civil engineering company.
Additionally, there is the question of whether the facade has already been approved. I would say that until approval, the risk of damage, destruction, or accidental loss lies with the contractor, meaning the developer.
Additionally, there is the question of whether the facade has already been approved. I would say that until approval, the risk of damage, destruction, or accidental loss lies with the contractor, meaning the developer.
F
Frank Hartung29 Nov 2018 17:28@Mottenhausen
I see it differently:
Until the building is officially accepted, the risk has not passed to the client. Therefore, the risk remains with the contractor. This would only be different if the damage was caused by a trade acting as an agent of the client. But how should the contractor prove this?
I see it differently:
Until the building is officially accepted, the risk has not passed to the client. Therefore, the risk remains with the contractor. This would only be different if the damage was caused by a trade acting as an agent of the client. But how should the contractor prove this?
Similar topics