Furnace Repair Fraud or Negligence?

[ldlopez87]

I bought a house about a month ago in California. We got to the inspection point and were looking for requests for repairs or credits. Our inspector said that the furnace had a crack in the firebox and explained this typically means replacing the furnace. The seller said they had it repaired earlier in the year (for $1,400) and the warranty was still valid and transferable. He had the company who originally repaired it come out to look at the unit. The company rep said there did not appear to be a crack and checked the carbon monoxide levels inside the house to find nothing. He provided and inspection report at that time saying what he found and did. I also got a copy of the report from the original repair. We then moved on, based off of his inspection.

Fast forward to when we close on the house and have gas and electric come turn off our gas and furnace for termite tenting. When it comes to turn the furnace on, they refuse to due to a leaking/cracked firebox in the furnace. The gas and electric inspector said the gas would leak into the garage (not the inside of the house) and could kill someone who was working or fell asleep in the garage. He put a large caution sticker on it and that was that.

I had the original company come out again and the rep told me that the parts he repaired were still working and he got it to turn it on, therefore the warranty is worthless. He claims he fixed the furnace originally when it wasn’t working and he got it to work at that time as well. I argued it was not safe to operate and just because you can turn it on, doesn’t mean it’s sufficiently operable. He claims he told the original owner it was dangerous but was asked to repair it anyways (no indication of this was in the original or subsequent report).

The cost of replacing the furnace is $3,800 based off of a quote from a competitor. Can I take the company (it’s incorporated) to small claims for that amount? In my mind, they committed fraud and negligence. Thank you ahead of time!

 

[HRZ]

THe doctrine of merger suggests your leverage went to zero at closing since you failed to get it locked,in t survive closing ...

 

[ldlopez87]

THe doctrine of merger suggests your leverage went to zero at closing since you failed to get it locked,in t survive closing ...

Thanks for the response. I'm not going after the sellers. I agree my leverage with them went to zero at close.

I'm going after the company that did the original repairs for the following reason:
1. The original inspection and invoice lists that the warranty is transferable. It lasts 90 days and we are within that.
2. The repair company originally fixed it to the point to where it turns on but it is still dangerous.
3. At the time of the home inspection, it was declared to have a cracked firebox and therefore, was unsafe by my inspector. The repair company then inspected it again and said it was ok (it was not). After trying to make the claim on the warranty, they refused saying the parts they replaced were still working.

 

[HRZ]

MY guess is owner knew it was a patch up job on furnace...a hot air furnace I presume ....but whether that's a problem under the relevant sellers disclosure ..and or how to prove owner knew it was unsafe repair is way beyond my crystal ball. ....but I see your point as to the transferrable warranty ...but still unclear if they warrant safe operation or just repairs they made . Is the warranty something seller signed over to you?

I just sgotta believe seller knew firebox was cracked and thus unfit for use


ME I'd find some points that might stick and go back after them BOTH on a single claim

IN hindsight your inspector discovered the cracked firebox and sellers repair firm tried a double talk point that it was safe......

 

[Zigner]

ME I'd find some points that might stick and go back after them BOTH on a single claim

The matter was disclosed by the sellers.

 

[HRZ]

Probably Zinger is correct....but the actual written words might matter ..repairing a furnace does not mean per se the problem was fixed and apparently the repair service advised seller something was " dangerous" but that comment may be hard to prove ....agree you were given big red flag ..but sort of bungled checking it out and relied to your detriment that it was covered by written warranty

I m surprised that a reputable service firm would make a repair on a " dangerous " unit wo some sort of written comment /warning to customer..there is more to this story? .


Hey, the cost of a small clams action is pretty low ....

 

[ldlopez87]

The seller never disclosed it was "dangerous" (in fact, they and their repairman said it was working when my inspector said the fire box was cracked). However, I'm not trying to go after the seller.

The question does appear to be whether the repairman is liable and if "repairing" doesn't necessarily mean getting something to a safe condition. He says he told the seller it wasn't dangerous but why then would he contradict what my inspector said by saying "did not see a crack in the firebox" per his own inspection report? And why wouldn't his second report say it was dangerous? I think he is lying and the fact that he has no proof of "telling" the seller via an inspection report supports that.

 

[HRZ]

The seller picked and paid the repair firm and presumably benefited from a price which was not adjusted for a,problem very likely known to the seller...and one with serious safety and habitability issues ....and I suspect the seller represented the warranty as transferrable ..

I think if you put them both in the barrel some other things may come out of woodpile when finger pointing begins

 

[ldlopez87]

ok, thank you for the advice! really appreciate it. I'll see how i can get them both in court