Threatening to promote a video of damage

[dj_patm]

Simple question for any lawyers on here, would it be fair game to threaten to promote a video showing damage caused by a company to personal property that is already public in exchange for that company covering the costs of said damage?

Ads seem to be more effective than small claims court.

[killramos]

[Mitsu3000gt]

Not totally related, but I had contractors from a carpet/hardwood company in town damage my property, bill the insurance company for work that wasn't completed (while actively trying to cover up that fact - i.e. insurance fraud), intentionally broke my security camera, and generally just do a shitty job. I threatened them with the video and they paid me out right away (enough for me to change my locks and get a proper job from another contractor) - it was also the only way I was ever going to get rid of them and get a proper job done without being out of pocket. Your situation sounds similar but I'm not a lawyer so I can't help much beyond that haha. I can tell you I 100% for sure would have had ongoing problems and/or more damage done to my property with the worst quality of work imaginable if I didn't threaten them, and that was basically my only option.

[R154]

That sounds like extortion.

You could post a video with no expectations and see what the company does without coercion.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by R154
That sounds like extortion.

You could post a video with no expectations and see what the company does without coercion.

Already have. Company refused to comment even though there was quite a bit of uproar (including a news story).

They refuse to acknowledge the situation and instead are trying to wait it out until it blows over.

I'll take them to small claims if thats my only recourse and I intend on promoting the video regardless.

[R154]

Problem I see with this is the use of the word "threaten".

And if I were you, I wouldn't be making incriminating posts on public forums, especially if you plan to retain counsel.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by R154
Problem I see with this is the use of the word "threaten".

And if I were you, I wouldn't be making incriminating posts on public forums, especially if you plan to retain counsel.

I used that word on purpose so I know my full exposure if I choose to go down this route. It's not as if they won't call it a threat should they pursue legal action.

Is it extortion if you're trying to get them to fix damage you allege is solely caused by their negligence in exchange for me no longer promoting a video I already posted and shared without threat?

[roopi]

Where's the video?

[dj_patm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wAzmTmJFZQ

[ercchry]

This something that was damaged covered by your insurance? If so I'd let them know what happened and give them the video... funny how tunes can change when you get a little weight behind your demands

[R154]

Originally posted by dj_patm


I used that word on purpose so I know my full exposure if I choose to go down this route. It's not as if they won't call it a threat should they pursue legal action.

Is it extortion if you're trying to get them to fix damage you allege is solely caused by their negligence in exchange for me no longer promoting a video I already posted and shared without threat?

I am not a lawyer. It's at this point I'm going to bow out.

Id go to a corporate law firm. Or do some digging and find out who they retain as their counsel. Talk directly with the people leading their PR/social efforts.

But this definitely leaves you very open for a civil suit if not a criminal investigation into extortion especially if you have the specific intention of blackmail.

[lasimmon]

There is a rather large thread over at CP regarding this.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by R154


I am not a lawyer. It's at this point I'm going to bow out.

Id go to a corporate law firm. Or do some digging and find out who they retain as their counsel. Talk directly with the people leading their PR/social efforts.

But this definitely leaves you very open for a civil suit if not a criminal investigation into extortion especially if you have the specific intention of blackmail.

Yeah hence my hesitation and upfront question.

It's such fucking bullshit that they will get away with this.

I think I'm just going to promote the video again without any action towards the builder.

Mods you can delete this if you'd like. Thanks guys.

[Masked Bandit]

Right or wrong, here's the problem. My understanding is that because you had condo insurance, the money that the condo board back-charged you for the deductible is covered under your policy. At most, you're out your own deductible ($500???) and a small bump on your premiums for the next three years (maybe). I guess I have to wonder how much more money I would spend on things like lawyers & whatnot just to chase these jerks. Sometimes you just lose and it's best to move on.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Right or wrong, here's the problem. My understanding is that because you had condo insurance, the money that the condo board back-charged you for the deductible is covered under your policy. At most, you're out your own deductible ($500???) and a small bump on your premiums for the next three years (maybe). I guess I have to wonder how much more money I would spend on things like lawyers & whatnot just to chase these jerks. Sometimes you just lose and it's best to move on.

That's exactly why I wanted to clear up the legal situation of what I suggested in the OP. I am willing to spend some money to spread the message some more though.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by dj_patm
Simple question for any lawyers on here, would it be fair game to threaten to promote a video showing damage caused by a company to personal property that is already public in exchange for that company covering the costs of said damage?

Ads seem to be more effective than small claims court.

As an armchair lawyer, I think threaten is fine, but you run a fine line with libel/slander depending on whether you can prove it was their fault.

[rage2]

Originally posted by ercchry
This something that was damaged covered by your insurance? If so I'd let them know what happened and give them the video... funny how tunes can change when you get a little weight behind your demands

This is covered by condo insurance. The deductible is covered by his own insurance. He's not happy that he had to pay a deductible? I'm not sure why he's still dragging this on.

Sink failed after warranty period due to poor workmanship, I get that he got bait and switched on the updated new home warranty, but that's another separate issue. Even if he had the 1-2-5-10 warranty it's arguable that this wouldn't be covered either.

Just a little surprised at how far you're willing to go while exposing yourself to future litigation.

Where we last left off:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/truman-h...=&pagenumber=2

Based on your post there it looks like it was covered by insurance, so I don't really get why you're going after Truman homes for property damaged when you've already been covered for it?

[jacky4566]

dj_patm. If you are serious about this.

Hit the gym, lawyer up, delete facebook.

Your only hurting yourself at this point.

[R-Audi]

I brought this up with someone in the industry when you initially posted.. They were told that one of the companies involved (Builder or trades) was trying to figure out a way to help you out until you either made beligerant phone calls or left beligerant messages. (I dont recall which it was) After that, all bets were off.
If you think about it, this whole thing actually works out in the builders and trades benefit... publically they have denied your claim and set precedence for future claims.

Im not looking to get into a he said she said here... but it goes to show how you treat people can go a long way. Im not going to give names or anymore info, so take it for what its worth.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by R-Audi
I brought this up with someone in the industry when you initially posted.. They were told that one of the companies involved (Builder or trades) was trying to figure out a way to help you out until you either made beligerant phone calls or left beligerant messages. (I dont recall which it was) After that, all bets were off.
If you think about it, this whole thing actually works out in the builders and trades benefit... publically they have denied your claim and set precedence for future claims.

Im not looking to get into a he said she said here... but it goes to show how you treat people can go a long way. Im not going to give names or anymore info, so take it for what its worth.

Well that's just a full out lie. I have all of the correspondence saved. No solution was offered to me besides "don't worry, insurance will cover it"and I didn't leave any voicemail and was very civil over the phone both times I spoke to the service manager. I didn't name anyone or throw anyone under the bus. I didn't even post the builder name or anything specific about the situation until well after they told me I'm S.O.L. and they can't (read:Won't) do anything.

I know that they're staying quiet to avoid setting precedence for situations like this in the future. They could've stopped me from sharing my story twice before it went on the news.

As for everyone wondering why am I still trying to pursue this after the fact? Well, money is tight and I'm still liable for my deductible and I'm very disappointed that they refused to even acknowledge the situation and yes, I don't want to let them get away with negligent workmanship just by shutting up.

Originally posted by sexualbanana


As an armchair lawyer, I think threaten is fine, but you run a fine line with libel/slander depending on whether you can prove it was their fault.

That would mean they would have to prove that the sink wasn't negligently installed. Sinks that are properly installed do not fall out after 15 months.