Hello everyone!
We have had water leakage through a cable duct for TV and telephony. The water came in connection with heavy rain and flowed/filled through several cable wells located on the street. At this time, fiber networks were being installed in the area and we have sued the contractor who refuses to pay. The insurance company does not pay because it is "externally intruding water" due to a leaky wall duct.
Does anyone recognize similar cases?
Thankful for any help!
Rolf
We have had water leakage through a cable duct for TV and telephony. The water came in connection with heavy rain and flowed/filled through several cable wells located on the street. At this time, fiber networks were being installed in the area and we have sued the contractor who refuses to pay. The insurance company does not pay because it is "externally intruding water" due to a leaky wall duct.
Does anyone recognize similar cases?
Thankful for any help!
Rolf
The question was indeed about personal experience, which I can't contribute.
But IF the implementation was not professionally executed, then the contractor should be responsible. So, is it determined exactly why it leaked in? Has the contractor somehow justified why they don't have responsibility?
If I were to guess, maybe the company could claim that they reused an existing hole for cables, which turned out to be improperly executed. And then they failed with the sealing. Or that the fundamental issue is poor drainage, allowing water to press against the wall and seep into the hole they made.
I believe, but could be wrong, that such implementations should be done with an outward slope, and then sealed with, for instance, foam sealant.
But IF the implementation was not professionally executed, then the contractor should be responsible. So, is it determined exactly why it leaked in? Has the contractor somehow justified why they don't have responsibility?
If I were to guess, maybe the company could claim that they reused an existing hole for cables, which turned out to be improperly executed. And then they failed with the sealing. Or that the fundamental issue is poor drainage, allowing water to press against the wall and seep into the hole they made.
I believe, but could be wrong, that such implementations should be done with an outward slope, and then sealed with, for instance, foam sealant.
Or have I misunderstood. It says that the installation of the fiber network was ongoing, but had they connected it to your house as well, or were they just working on the network in the street, etc.?
It's not the installation that has been leaky, it's been seeping in through the street pipe. Or am I misunderstanding?
In other words, it's the same as if the municipal sewage system overflows and water seeps in through the drainage system, the back way.
Has the insurance company understood the above (you're talking about "installation" but is that really the case) and why are you talking to the contractor instead of the network owner?
In other words, it's the same as if the municipal sewage system overflows and water seeps in through the drainage system, the back way.
Has the insurance company understood the above (you're talking about "installation" but is that really the case) and why are you talking to the contractor instead of the network owner?
It should also be sealed against the pipe. A cable pipe underground can always become filled with water.
It depends on what kind of pipe it is. I have used pem-hose and it doesn't get water-filled.
My point is that it sounds like it's not the wall penetration that's leaking, but that the water has come via the pipe, in the pipe, and that must be two completely different things from an insurance perspective.
My point is that it sounds like it's not the wall penetration that's leaking, but that the water has come via the pipe, in the pipe, and that must be two completely different things from an insurance perspective.
Hello again and thank you for the posts!
In connection with the fiber installation, the network owner, who is a subcontractor to our main contractor (a large telecom company), pulled feeder fiber to a junction cabinet in one of the properties. They sealed the existing pipe outlet used for the fiber installation in the cable well on the street. However, they did not seal the other pipe outlet, which, according to our main contractor, ComHem is responsible for. During the downpour, rainwater flowed through the unsealed pipe via a cable well on the property where the cables for TV entered through the house wall into the apartment. Since the street cable well is the last one and is located on a slope, rainwater from wells further up has flowed through the mentioned cable well and into the apartment. The pipes for the TV cable are plastic pipes 50 mm in diameter. Using a camera, it was seen that water remained in the pipe a few meters outside the house wall, indicating that the pipes slope away from the property.
In connection with the fiber installation, the network owner, who is a subcontractor to our main contractor (a large telecom company), pulled feeder fiber to a junction cabinet in one of the properties. They sealed the existing pipe outlet used for the fiber installation in the cable well on the street. However, they did not seal the other pipe outlet, which, according to our main contractor, ComHem is responsible for. During the downpour, rainwater flowed through the unsealed pipe via a cable well on the property where the cables for TV entered through the house wall into the apartment. Since the street cable well is the last one and is located on a slope, rainwater from wells further up has flowed through the mentioned cable well and into the apartment. The pipes for the TV cable are plastic pipes 50 mm in diameter. Using a camera, it was seen that water remained in the pipe a few meters outside the house wall, indicating that the pipes slope away from the property.
Hello again!
The insurance company has asked me to write an email requesting a reconsideration of the decision. I should specify the reasons for the reconsideration, and I also think that "an unsealed pipe penetration in the foundation wall" is incorrect. It is not unsealed between the penetration itself and the basement exterior wall, allowing water to enter there; instead, the water has flowed via the cable pipe through the penetration into the apartment. This could be equated with when water penetrates through existing pipes up through floor drains, etc. Then, of course, the definition of the foundation wall versus basement exterior wall can be discussed. Further questions are the requirement for sealing around the cables and the pipe penetration. I have unsuccessfully googled it, as well as the requirement for sealing around cables and openings in cable wells.
I am grateful for ideas!!
Rolf
The insurance company has asked me to write an email requesting a reconsideration of the decision. I should specify the reasons for the reconsideration, and I also think that "an unsealed pipe penetration in the foundation wall" is incorrect. It is not unsealed between the penetration itself and the basement exterior wall, allowing water to enter there; instead, the water has flowed via the cable pipe through the penetration into the apartment. This could be equated with when water penetrates through existing pipes up through floor drains, etc. Then, of course, the definition of the foundation wall versus basement exterior wall can be discussed. Further questions are the requirement for sealing around the cables and the pipe penetration. I have unsuccessfully googled it, as well as the requirement for sealing around cables and openings in cable wells.
I am grateful for ideas!!
Rolf