Actually, I think I misread a bit of what you were saying Steve. I agree with you, resolution/arbitration needs to be able to happen in situations like this in a timely manner, with an expedited resolution in the event that undue burden is placed on a homeowner.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think you understand how this works. > > AT&T hires a contractor to install copper/fiber. Contractor needs to > do work somewhere, so they hire the regional locate company to come in > and locate existing utilities. Locate company marks the utilities. If > the contractor hits an unmarked utility, the liability is on the > locate company. If the contractor hits a marked utility, the liability > is on the contractor. > > If a homeowner does work in the yard and hits a utility without having > them located, the liability is on the homeowner. > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:09 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I dont like intervention from the gubment >> >> But these situations are not uncommon, There should be consumer recourse to >> get made whole in a timely fashion, even if that means accountability to the >> entity hiring the contractor, as they are there as a representative of that >> company, at the same time there should be a simplified mechanism for the >> primary company to recoup the costs associated directly from the contracting >> company, but the consumer protection and recourse should be a priority. It >> shouldnt be a hoop jumping fest for the consumer either. Even if it means >> something as simple as if you have easement access, youre bound to a 14 day >> compensation window to compensate the consumer, at which point its up to the >> company to recoup those costs either through a suit against the contractor, >> or in a suit against the consumer. It shouldnt be the other way around where >> all burdens fall on the consumer >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> And they should. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett Sent: Wednesday, July 20, >>> 2016 1:52 PM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] >>> Fiber....your worst nightmare? >>> The drilling company is liable, but AT&T could pressure them to take care >>> of it. >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: 7/20/2016 2:57:29 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber....your worst nightmare? >>> >>>> Drilling company is on the hook. No question. >>>> I hire contractors all the time. 100% on them when things like this >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Andy Trimmell >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:56 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber....your worst nightmare? >>>> >>>> ATT saying they're not involved is really a crappy way to do business. >>>> The drilling company worked for them so they should do their due diligence >>>> and help the homeowner get what they deserve. If they did they'd probably >>>> have a life long customer but instead they point fingers and say say "nuh >>>> uh >>>> not me". >>>> >>>> Don't get people some times. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:50 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber....your worst nightmare? >>>> >>>> On 7/20/16 11:34, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comments? >>>>> >>>>> http://via.whnt.com/pLJZ6 >>>>> >>>>> If I were on my desktop I'd post the text >>>>> >>>> >>>> Isn't that what homeowner's insurance is for so the insurance company >>>> will go after the at-fault party so you don't have to? Good luck getting >>>> AT&T to admit to anything. >>>> >>>> ~Seth >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as >> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
