Summary
This blog is aimed at homeowners and explains the obstacles a homeowner may face in attempting to get money to repair leaks caused by solar panels, as well as money for mold damage to the property, and any other incidental expenses such as medical and hotel bills.
Those obstacles to remedies include the following: (1) the homeowner has the burden of proof; (2) the courts promote settlement, which mean encourage the homeowner to accept less than a full remedy and potentially punish the homeowner for failing to accept a settlement that the Court felt should have been accepted; (3) if the homeowner discovers the leak more than four years after the installation, the contractor will raise a statute of limits defense, and the homeowner will need to spend time and money overcoming that defense; (4) the contract may or may not call for attorney fees, either situation creates risks for the homeowner; (5) the contract may expressly limit damages to just the cost of the contract, meaning the homeowner may not be able to collect damages for harm to the property, medical bills, or hotel stays; (6) the contract may call for arbitration, which means the homeowner will have to pay the arbiter’s fees; (7) you cannot recover damages that could have been avoided, meaning you need to pay for a repair as soon as possible, but, then the solar panel installation company will blame the repair company for the leaks.
Finally, (8) litigation is time consuming, costly and risky and by design usually results in a suboptimal result - see the following blogs - (a) ; (b) ; (c) and (d) . The point is that seeking a remedy from solar panels is certain to be time consuming and expensive, and the outcome is uncertain and risky.
Strategies include looking to the homeowner’s insurance company to pay for the damages; looking for the solar panel installation company’s insurance company to pay for the damages; negotiations, including potentially reporting the solar panel installation company to the California State Contractor’s Licensing Board.
Details follow.
DETAILS
The homeowner has the burden of proof when seeking a remedy
As the plaintiff, meaning the person seeking the remedy, the homeowner has the burden of proof. Proving that the panels were the cause of the leak is difficult and may require a costly expert, whose testimony is not certain.
Courts promote settlement, meaning accepting less than a full remedy, and may punish a homeowner or who does not accept a less than full remedy
Also, the courts have a policy to promote settlement. As a practical matter that means that courts will often attempt to force a settlement that may not be fair for the homeowner and discriminate against the homeowner to punish the homeowner if the homeowner does not take a settlement that the Court thinks the homeowner should accept.
If the homeowner does not discover the leak within four years, the homeowner must also win on a statute of limits defense costing more time and money
If the homeowner does not discover the leak within four years of the installation, the statute of limitations may be a defense that prevents the homeowner from obtaining any remedy.
An Attorney’s fees provision may or may not be part of the contract, and either way creates risk for the homeowner
Additionally, the contract that the homeowner originally signed may or may not require the losing party to pay for the winning party’s attorney fees, in addition to any damages.
Attorney fees mean that the losing party may be forced to pay the attorney fees of the winning party.
Whether the contract has an attorney fees “cuts both ways.” That means, if there are not attorney fees available, the homeowner cannot recover the cost of the attorney to win the relief. If there are attorney fees available, the homeowner risks having to pay the solar installer’s attorney fees, if the homeowner loses.
The contract may limit the remedy to only the cost of the contract, but the damages may be much greater
Some contracts limit the damages to just the value of the contract. If that is the case, then the homeowner cannot recover what are called incidental and consequential damages from the leak. Incidental damages include amounts for hotel stays for periods of time that the leak forces the homeowner to reside outside of the home. Consequential damages include things like medical damages for doctors bills from mold exposure and the like and additional damages to the property.
The contract may require arbitration, which can be much more expensive that a lawsuit
If the contract for installation calls for arbitration, all those risks and obstacles exist, and the homeowner needs to pay one half of the very large arbiter’s fee.
I certainly wouldn’t say that each arbiter is self-interested, however, the fact that private arbiters earn $600 to $700 an hour to arbitrate certainly raises the question of whether that person might take an especially long time to make decisions and arbitrate, costing the homeowner more money.
The only thing in seeking a remedy for leaks caused by solar panels is that seeking a remedy will cost a lot of money and time and the outcome is uncertain
The point is that seeking a remedy from solar panels is certain to be time consuming and expensive, and the outcome is uncertain and risky.
In California, a homeowner cannot recover money for damages that could have been avoided, meaning the homeowner needs to cause repairs to be made, but, then the solar panel installation company will blame the repair company
You cannot recover damages that could have been avoided, meaning you need to pay for a repair as soon as possible, but, then the solar panel installation company will blame the repair company for the leaks.
Strategies for getting a remedy
Strategies include looking to the homeowner’s insurance company to pay for the damages; looking for the solar panel installation company’s insurance company to pay for the damages; negotiations, including potentially reporting the solar panel installation company to the California State Contractor’s Licensing Board.