Stung by a lawyer’s claim that it’s only willing to pony up $1,800 to cover a Pennsylvania couple’s $58,000 in fire damage caused by a FiOS installer, Verizon tells The Consumerist that the attorney left out a key detail: that the $1,800 is only an advance while the parties hammer out an agreement on the balance.
From that blog post:
Eric Rabe, Verizon Senior Vice President of Media Relations told The Consumerist:
It is not true that "Verizon is only offering the couple $1,800" as their lawyer has told the press. We have paid the couple that amount as an advance to cover some of their initial expenses, and we are attempting to negotiate an agreement to cover the remainder of their loss. Meanwhile, we are providing temporary housing for the couple at a nearby … hotel while their landlord is renovating their rental apartment. Nonetheless, the couple involved in this case has decided to sue Verizon.
So, as you can see, primary fault here rests with the unscrupulous lawyer and his ungrateful clients. Glad we have this straightened out.
|
|
verizion
I am Andrew Cotlar, the unscrupulous lawyer mentioned above. You should know that since Verizon reluctantly paid the $1,800 only after we sent them a copy of the lawsuit, we have heard NOTHING from them. They claim they're negotiating but they must be negotiating with themselves, as I have not had a single phone call from them since. They know where I am and where to contact me. To quote the Princess Bride, "We are men of action. Lies do not become us."
Andrew Cotlar
derision
No, I'm Andrew Cotlar, and how the hell I came up with $50K worth of stuff in an apartment is beyond me... I guess maybe we padded a little bit? And now verizon is actually checking our figures and claims? Damn. Gonna be a bit longer.