May 27, 2011
******************
************
Question
************
Hi Ken
I'm a first time questioner, long time reader....
Customer recently had us install some water detection devices on his system. While he was out of town (& over the weekend) there was a water pressure surge that popped some fittings on a water softener system that resulted in a substantial water leak. Because of a programming error, the device reported as trouble signals instead of alarms.......so no calls were made by the CS. Monday morning while reading the log we saw the activity, realized there was a problem and called the local caretaker. Luckily there was no damage done to the residence, but because he lives in a community that has water use restrictions he got hit with a fat water bill (appx $1000.00 instead of the normal $85). He feels that we are responsible for not only the 1k water bill, but also the anticipated additional charges he will incur for the remainder of the year because he is over his allotted water use (he's calculating appx $4,000). It seems reasonable to me that all parties involved, especially those who caused the problem, should actually be held accountable. The water company for the pressure surge, the water softener installing company for (possible) poor installation in an area with known pressure issues, the homeowner...because it's his home.
My contract limits our damages to $ 250.00, but as a local independant company who values our customers and our reputation, I am looking for a reasonable resolve with him. Any opinions or suggestions?
Jessica
************
Answer
************
You could send it over to your insurance carrier but then you'll be on the hook for your deductible. If you use my contracts you owe nothing and your sub needs to know that. If you make any accommodation, do it with a credit for your bills; don't set bad precedent with this sub or you'll be on the hook for every loss.
It's always a tough call when you mix in subscriber good will and continued business, especially when the damages demanded by the subscriber are within the range of something you'd hope to recoup in the long run from the subscriber. So even if you accepted blame for the full $4000 you might make it back.
I don't, however, recommend that. You have a contract and you should stick with it. If there is a limitation of liability provision then you should enforce it. You can offer the $250 because you admit to an error, simply negligence.
By the way that's some water bill; and no water damage. Where are you, on the moon?