[CLC-Discussion] Chapter 558 application -- is privity required?

[John Trawick]

An owner claims that my client, a roofing contractor, damaged his roof while my client was replacing an adjoining townhouse roof.  The owner claims that as a result of the roof damage, water entered his unit and cause secondary damage to sheetrock, cabinets, etc.  I am inclined to tell the owner that until he complies with 558, there's nothing to discuss.  The definitions in 558 do not appear to limit the application of 558 to only those situations where there is privity between the owner and contractor.  Instead, 558 would indeed appear to govern this situation, notwithstanding the absence of privity.  Am I wrong?

[cid:image002.jpg at 01CDB38E.02CADE70]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/60fdef1a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 100050 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20121026/60fdef1a/image002.jpg>