I have filed suit in Small Claims Court to recover damages for property lost in the flooding of a climate-controlled storage building. The owner has retained the services of a lawyer, but I will be representing myself. I expect that the case will center on the rental agreement I originally signed and I would appreciate any opinions you might have on the merits of my case.
The facts briefly stated involve a newly opened climate-controlled storage business and the slow-moving approach (600 miles inland) of the remnants of a Gulf hurricane. Residents and businesses in my area were warned in news reports 4-5 days in advance of the storm's arrival that there was a risk of flooding to low-lying areas should the storm stay on track. However the land elevation in my area varies greatly and the storage building was at least 150 yards from the nearest waterway and not in obvious danger.
Unknown to me at the time I rented the unit and still unknown at the time of the storm’s approach was the fact that the building was indeed located within a FEMA identified 100-year flood plain. Also unknown was the fact that 4 days prior to the storm’s arrival, local firemen had distributed leaflets to businesses and residents in the area where the storage building was located reminding them that they were within the flood plain and that their property was at risk.
There was no attempt made by the management of the storage business to pass along the warning that had been issued nor was any notice given at this time that the building was in a flood plain. Neither were there any measures taken by the owner to attempt to avoid potential damage by placing sandbags in front of doorways. In short, nothing was done and when the storm arrived the nearest waterway left its banks and four feet of water flooded the storage building.
Occupants received their first phone call from management the morning after the flooding had taken place. It is my contention that the owner should have notified renters of the risk posed by the building's location in a flood plain before the storm arrived, or better yet at the time the rental agreement was originally signed.
The owner was quoted in the newspaper as saying “they never expected the water to get so high”. I should have had the opportunity to make my own decision as to what was an acceptable risk, based on all of the facts available to the owner.
The rental agreement consists of two pages detailing what the owner isn’t responsible for doing or providing. In particular it states:
It is the last sentence on which I am hanging my hopes. I was indeed paying for a climate-controlled unit and he did have an obligation to provide “heating, cooling and moisture control”. Given that the owner had sufficient warning that he might not be able to provide these conditions in the event of the storm’s arrival, he had a duty as well as the opportunity to inform the renters of the risk to our property.Occupant shall keep his property fully insured against casualty loss. Operator provides NO insurance of Occupant’s property stored in the leased space….Operator shall not be responsible for the theft or disappearance of Occupant’s property, nor in any manner for the safekeeping or the condition of the goods stored, nor for damages thereto caused by fire, water, freezing, heat, changes in temperature, humidity, dampness, leakage, rodents, insects, lightning, windstorm, hail, snow, flood, explosion, riot or civil disturbance, collapse of buildings, actions of other occupants, loss or failure of electricity, malicious destruction of third parties, or from any cause whatsoever of Operator or its agents. Occupant accepts the space in “as is “ condition. Occupant acknowledges that no heating cooling or moisture-control facilities are provided for non-climate controlled units.
After the flood I learned from long-time residents that this particular building had flooded before in the 1970s. Not being from the area, this wasn’t known by me or any of the other occupants with whom I spoke. It would have been known to the owner however, since he is a long established real estate broker and investor. The location of the building in a flood zone would have certainly come up in his purchase and financing of the building. Since the time of this flood, the owner has built an earthen levee around the perimeter of his building. Whether this would stop flood waters is doubtful but it does put renters on notice as to the risk.
The owner chose to place a climate-controlled storage business in a 100-year flood plain and expects the renters to assume all of the risk for that decision. Does that paragraph in the rental agreement quoted above allow him to get away with it, or is he liable for the payment of damages for the destruction of my property?

