A resolution has been reached regarding a contractor who accidentally demolished part of a Mississauga man’s property.
A resolution has been reached regarding a contractor who accidentally demolished part of a Mississauga man’s property.
The agreement, which several parties confirmed to on Friday, concludes a seven-year legal dispute between the property owner and the contractor along with its insurance provider.
“It was quite the shock, to say the least,” said Angelo Raitsinis, reflecting on discovering that part of his property had been destroyed in an interview on Friday morning before the settlement was finalized.
He mentioned that he bought the property about 10 years ago, and he and his family were not living there when the house was taken down.
Raitsinis expressed that he intended to rebuild and had begun working toward obtaining a demolition permit but eventually abandoned those plans due to financial constraints.
“I planned to move my family in since I had young children at the time. And it just didn’t work out that way,” he shared.
partially-demolished house Mississauga A photo of Angelo Raitsinis’ partially demolished house in Mississauga, around 2018. (Angelo Raitsinis/photo)
He filed a lawsuit against the contractor for $1.5 million, stating that they came to demolish a home at 25 Theodore Dr. in Mississauga in 2018, which is located across from his property.
However, “Instead of demolishing the building property located at 25 Theodore Drive, Mississauga, the Defendants demolished or partially demolished beyond repair the building owned by the Plaintiffs at 28 Theodore Drive,” according to his lawsuit.
A video walkthrough taken by Raitsinis shows that part of his house had been torn down with debris scattered on one side while another section remained intact.
In comments made to , one family member involved with the contracting business admitted to the error and explained that an excavator was delivered to the wrong address.
They noted that this mistake seemed more reasonable because both properties looked ready for demolition and utility services had already been disconnected.
The legal matter revolved around how much should be compensated through insurance: whether it would be more for an entire house or less for one that’s only partially standing based on its condition.
The contractor’s insurance company, Intact, stated to on Friday morning, “Our team continues to be engaged in discussions and has made a number of attempts to reach a reasonable resolution.”
Although trial proceedings were set to begin on Monday, both parties managed to agree after a private hearing on Friday.
Raitsinis mentioned one reason he couldn’t turn to his own insurance company for compensation is because he didn’t have homeowner’s insurance for that property.
“My wife thought I had taken care of it, and vice versa. And here we are,” he remarked.
Source link
Source link
