Home Depot Tool Rental ‘Damage Protection’ Doesn’t Cover Actual Damage, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action argues that Home Depot’s “damage protection” for tool rentals doesn’t cover damage at all and insures only “normal wear and tear.” 

The 21-page lawsuit out of Georgia contends that although Home Depot customers pay an extra 15 percent of the cost to rent a tool for “damage protection,” the retailer in practice only applies the insurance to normal wear and tear. The case claims Home Depot has either breached its contract with customers or made a “unilateral mistake” in drafting the contract that renders the damage protection coverage “meaningless and illusory and incapable of being enforced by a customer.” 

In particular, the filing contends that the terms of Home Depot’s internal corporate policy conflict with the terms of its damage protection contract in that while the policy purportedly covers only “normal wear and tear on equipment,” a section of the contract covers tools “damaged during normal use,” a scope of coverage much broader than normal wear and tear.

In the alternative, Home Depot, the case posits, has engaged in “promissory fraud” in that it possibly never intended to hold up its end of the damage protection contract with customers, aiming to cover only costs related to normal wear and tear for rented tools. 

“Pursuant to this uniform corporate policy and despite conflicting Contract obligations, Home Depot charges its customers who purchased Damage Protection for all damage to tools rented under the Contract,” the suit alleges. 

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, a Texas resident, rented a drain camera from a San Antonio Home Depot store for an initial cost of $139 for four hours. Per the suit, the plaintiff elected to buy “damage protection” for the rental for an additional $20.85. The consumer was charged a $500 deposit to cover the cost of the rental, damage protection and estimated sales tax, the lawsuit says. 

The case states that while the plaintiff was operating the drain camera as it was intended to be used, the camera became stuck in a cleanout drain at the man’s residence. After this, the plaintiff returned to the store from which he rented the camera and informed the tool rental department that the camera had become stuck in his drain, in response to which an employee advised that the man “twist and pull” the camera to dislodge it, the lawsuit says. 

Thereafter, the “twist and pull” approach did not work, and the plaintiff was forced to hire a plumber to remove the camera from his drain, a process that required masonry and rebar to be demolished to gain access to the drain and remove the camera, the suit states. When the camera was removed, there was apparently damage to the device, which the case contests was not the result of abuse or an intentional act. 

When the plaintiff returned the drain camera to Home Depot, he learned that the damage protection he paid for would not apply since the store considered the device damaged due to “neglect,” and not “normal wear and tear,” the case claims. 

Thereafter, the plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, was told that he would be charged more than $3,000 to offset Home Depot’s cost of having to replace the damaged drain camera. Per the suit, the consumer “refused to pay” the charge. 

The filing contends that a unilateral mistake by Home Depot in drafting a section of its damage protection contract essentially creates a loophole to the coverage, rendering it “completely illusory” and leaving consumers “without any protection whatsoever, or at best, subject to arbitrary determination by Home Depot as to which claims are covered and which claims are not.” 

Further, the case says that the same section of the damage protection contract expressly identifies that a tool can be damaged through “normal use, theft, abuse, misuse, neglect, or intentional acts,” with the only exclusion being damage caused through “theft, abuse or intentional acts.” 

The suit looks to cover all Home Depot customers who rented tools from the retailer by executing a contract with language identical to or materially similar to the contract signed by the plaintiff, and who purchased damage protection and did not have damage protection claims honored by Home Depot, within the last four years and until a class is certified.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.