Boyd Excavating Ltd

Boyd's negilgence in installing water service lines resulted in approximately $7,000 damage to our church. We want Boyd to pay the $2,500 deductible.1. Water damage occurred on 2 October 2013 while Boyd Excavating Ltd. (Boyd) was doing work on water lines in the neighbourhood in which St. James is located.2. [redacted] was notified by Boyd that water supplies were to be interrupted and a temporary water supply would be provided. However, these events did not occur in conformity with the notice. Instead, these events were delayed significantly. We did not receive notice of when the temporary supply was actually to be installed. It was fortuitous that a member of our congregation (Mr. [redacted]) was in the church when the following events occurred.3. The temporary supply included hoses attached to water connections (taps) on buildings, including [redacted].4. After Boyd connected the temporary water supply line to the church, and while Boyd personnel were still working in the street in front of the church, the basement of the church (specifically the washrooms) began to flood.5. Boyd personnel did not check the tap to which the temporary water supply line was attached to make certain that it was in proper working order nor did Boyd personnel check faucets located within the church to ensure that the temporary water supply line was functioning properly. There were church members in the building at the time, so such an inspection was possible.6. It appears that the pressure on the temporary water supply line was 120 pounds per square inch. This is twice the normal City of Regina water pressure of 60 pounds per square inch.7. The water flowing into the church damaged the ceiling and walls of the washrooms.8. Boyd personnel turned off the temporary water supply and opened drains to allow the basement of the church to drain.9. The following day, 3 October 2013, a representative of Boyd (Mr. [redacted], project supervisor) met with our priest ([redacted]) and a member of our congregation (Mr. [redacted]). Mr. [redacted] assured us that the damage would be repaired. He stated specifically that he was willing to replace the ceiling tiles himself.10. On 8 October 2013, a second attempt by Boyd to connect the temporary water supply lines resulted in a second flooding of the church basement.11. With the exception of the $2,500 deductible, damage to the church (approximately $7,000) was covered by [redacted]' insurance. It is the $2,500 deductible that is the focus of this claim.12. In an attempt to recover the deductible, a demand letter was sent to Boyd by our insurance adjuster in May, 2014.13. In response, Boyd refused to honour the commitments made by Mr. [redacted]. In a letter dated 13 May 2014, Mr. [redacted] (President, Boyd Excavating Ltd.) asserted:a. "Boyd installed the water connection in accordance with specifications."b. "Boyd turned on the water in accordance with City of Regina instructions."c. "Boyd was not involved in setting water pressure provided by the City of Regina"d. "Boyd was not involved in the installation of the plumbing system in the church."e. "Therefore Boyd has no liability with respect to the damage suffered by the church."14. The specifications to which Mr. [redacted] makes reference require Boyd personnel to "check for leaks in connection". It does not appear that this was done.15. At no time have we asserted that Boyd was "involved in the installation of the plumbing system in the church." [redacted].16. Mr. [redacted]'s assertions that Boyd did not set the water pressure and was only following instructions are equally specious. Boyd knew or should have known of the consequences of connecting and turning on an apparently unregulated high pressure water line.17. Rather than honouring the commitments made by Mr. [redacted], Boyd now asserts that it "has no liability with respect to the damage suffered by the church." This assertion is false.18. Boyd is responsible for the damage that it caused and should be required to pay the $2,500 deductible noted above.Desired SettlementBoyd is responsible for the damage that it caused and should have honoured Mr. [redacted]'s commitment (noted above) to repair that damage. In this case, that commitment can be quantified as the $2,500 deductible (also noted above).Business Response We followed the procedures and guidlines that are laid out in the City specifications as well as our own manual. We are very experienced at this type of work but make no guarantee on the condition of the plumbing in the buildings we connect to (especially an old church). Without prejudice, we took it upon ourselves to repair the damage to keep things civilized. We made a repair to their plumbing, only to have another leak show up elsewhere in the building. It appears our line was well inside the recommended pressure.No actual proof or any sort of reasonable argument has been provided by this group, all they have provided is that they feel the assertations are false. The "commitment" that our foreman made was kept with the initial flooding - we spent over $6000 to make repairs, even though we were confident that this was not our problem.We have went well above our call of duty for this group, and if there were an actual valid claim it would have been pursued through small claims.Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)[redacted] We are considering our options and will proceed accordingly.