Driver who refused to 'go away' wins pothole suit
By Michael Stetz
STAFF WRITER
September 6, 2005
One in an occasional series of how the city of San Diego's fiscal crisis is affecting everyday life
So you're not supposed to fight city hall, right? Tell that to Robert DeLaurentis, who did so and won.
Then again, it wasn't exactly a fair fight.
DAVID BROOKS / Union-Tribune
Robert DeLaurentis sued the city of San Diego after a tire on his car was flattened when the vehicle hit a pothole on Miramar Road.
He took on San Diego City Hall, which is broke, in political crisis, facing federal probes and, let's see, now out another $500.
That's how much DeLaurentis won in a small-claims suit against the city over a blown tire he suffered in January when his BMW hit a pothole.
Call the July ruling a victory for the little guy.
It's also an example of how the city is taking it on the chin when it comes to potholes ? the number of which ballooned after this winter's near-record rainfall and years of road neglect.
DeLaurentis, 39, who owns and manages commercial and residential properties, says his six-month fight wasn't about money.
"This was a matter of principle," the Bankers Hill resident said. "I don't think they want to pay unless you make them pay. I think they think you'll just go away."
DeLaurentis was driving on Miramar Road, just east of Interstate 15, when he hit the pothole on his way to church. He's thankful the road was mostly clear, because he nearly lost control of his 2002 BMW Z8.
He spent a couple hours at a tire shop and paid more than $300 for a new tire.
How to help
After more than two years of devastating financial news, including plummeting bond ratings and investigations into city government's business practices, San Diego is struggling to find money for basic services. The Union-Tribune is exploring how these woes are affecting residents. Upset? Want to share a story? Call (619) 293-1720 or e-mail Michael Stetz at
[email protected].
When he filed his claim with the city's Risk Management program, he expected the city to pay up. After all, it was a city street and, hence, a city pothole.
Instead of a check, however, he got a letter from Risk Management that was less than enlightening: "Because subsequent investigation and legal opinion determined that your claim cannot be honored and because no formal denial has been caused to be issued by the city of San Diego within the 45-day time period as described in California Government Code Section 912.4, your claim is deemed denied by operation of that law."
DeLaurentis has a friend, an attorney who has served as a pro tem judge in small-claims court. She couldn't figure out what the letter meant, either.
Risk Management usually sends out a more reader-friendly rejection letter, said Ashley Fenton, the program's claims and insurance manager. It was unclear why DeLaurentis got the confusing one.
Angered by the rejection, DeLaurentis forked over about $30 to file his case in small-claims court, which rules on disputes that don't exceed $5,000 in damages. No lawyers are present. People represent themselves, while the city sends claims representatives.
Small-claims cases concerning potholes are rare. DeLaurentis said he figured that some people just give up, thinking it's a long shot or they can't afford to invest the time.
In the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, only two people turned to small-claims court for help with damage from potholes. The city won one case and lost the other.
When Risk Management learned DeLaurentis was going to court, it offered to settle the dispute by paying him for half his loss.
Fenton said Risk Management sometimes tries to cut deals rather than go to trial and have an employee waste a day in court.
DeLaurentis said he wasn't impressed by the city's offer. "Your time has value and mine doesn't?"
In court, the city made its case: DeLaurentis was turned down because the city didn't know a pothole existed at that site.
A pothole had been there before, the city admitted, and it had been fixed. But the patch failed to hold. It was DeLaurentis' tough luck that the pothole reappeared and that he ran into it before anyone notified the city.
DeLaurentis said the city also complained that his car was equipped with special tires ? the kind you can drive on even after they go flat. They don't absorb shocks as well as traditional tires.
Advertisement
The city's claim representative obviously had done a lot of research, DeLaurentis said, and that got him miffed. "Why not spend that money fixing potholes?"
The tires were legal, DeLaurentis said. It was the road that was dysfunctional, he added.
Fenton said the case was a good one to take to court. The city can't simply pay questionable claims, she said.
The hearing lasted about 30 minutes.
DeLaurentis got $350 for damages and $150 for he time he spent fighting the city. And he feels he put the city on notice.
"It's a matter of public safety," he said. "The streets shouldn't be in that condition."