Verizon Property Damage

[Zigner]

California. Posting this scenario for a buddy of mine. He was digging post holes to repair the fence in his backyard, when he cut the Verizon phone line going to his home. He contacted Verizon and they sent out a repair tech. The repair tech had him finish digging out the hole so the repair could be made, and then had him fill it back in when the tech was done.

There was never any discussion about signing a repair estimate or contract for payment for damages, but Rick got a bill in the mail a few days later for $163.00. He contacted Verizon, and they, repair dept, reduced it to $90. Rick has refused to pay this, as he believes he should have had the opportunity to have been presented with an estimated cost for damage, and has since been threatened by Verizon with criminal charges because he cut the line to his own phone.

Another Verizon rep outside of the repair dept. told him that they will deduct $15 per month from his bill each month for 6 months. While this is laughable, as he would completely recoup the $90, he still won't pay it because of the threats that the Verizon Repair tech keeps throwing at him.

His question here, is he legally obligated to pay the repair bill absent an estimate for damages and costs to make the repair, and without his signature agreeing to pay?

Go

Yes, he needs to pay the bill.

And, I've removed your post due to the link in the sig line

 

[OldandTired]

While he agrees that he cut the line, he's arguing that he was never given an estimate of repairs, or the opportunity to have been presented with an estimate for that repair. Doesn't California law state that before a person can be held liable to pay, that they have to have an estimate?, or is it implied that he IS responsible just due to the fact that he acknowledges cutting the line?

And what's wrong with the URL? That's a very well known law professor that teaches law.

 

[Zigner]

While he agrees that he cut the line, he's arguing that he was never given an estimate of repairs, or the opportunity to have been presented with an estimate for that repair. Doesn't California law state that before a person can be held liable to pay, that they have to have an estimate?, or is it implied that he IS responsible just due to the fact that he acknowledges cutting the line?

Sure - whatever

And what's wrong with the URL? That's a very well known law professor that teaches law.

We'll see what the boss thinks

 

[Zigner]

I know you won't like the last response.

This is a property damage case - kind of like a car accident. Friend owes the money (and it's cheap to boot!)

 

[OldandTired]

Well especially since they're giving it all back to him at a reduction of $15 a month for the next 6 months. I told him that he would be responsible because he acknowledged cutting the line, but any refusal to pay it would most likely result in Verizon just canceling his service altogether, as they would tie the 2 dollar amounts together, his regular phone bill and the repair costs. He just doesn't like to be threatened with criminal action since he's a freshly retired cop. I understand where he's coming from as far as the threats. He was a 30 year career man, and now he's got a telephone repair man threatening him.

I assumed that he would legally be responsible just based on the fact that he acknowledged responsibility, but I also believe he should have been advised of the cost for repair prior to it being done, and been given the opportunity to either agree with it, or talk with a supervisor if he disagreed.

Either way, he wasn't getting his phone service restored until the tech made the repair.