A San Francisco couple is suing their landlord and property managers after a bizarre fire, allegedly caused by a neighbor trying to burn a tick off a dog, destroyed their Lower Nob Hill apartment building.
On March 12, 2024, the tenant and her guest allegedly used an open flame inside a second-floor unit at 825 Post Street to remove the tick from the animal, according to an SF Gate report.
The dog, which ultimately survived, caught fire and ran through the non-pet-friendly apartment unit, igniting furniture and curtains. The dog had to have its ears amputated due to burns, and also suffered burns to the chest and neck, according to a report by the fire department.
The subsequent blaze sent two people to the hospital, displaced 10 residents, and caused an estimated $400,000 in damage.
The suing couple states that the fire would have never happened if the building had enforced its no-pet policy, according to the SF Gate report.
The couple says they lost nearly everything in their first-floor apartment due to the fire and struggled to find permanent housing since the fire. They say they have been living with their young child in a trailer while also paying storage fees, according to the report.
One of them used to work at an in-home care provider, but said they had to quit after the fire.
“We park underneath freeway overpasses at night, and move from place to place like nomads. We have no shower. We have little room for our clothes and personal belongings. … It is hard to find and maintain stable employment. We are stretched thin due to this fire,” the lawsuit states.
The couple also alleged that the building’s fire alarm system often didn’t work, windows were shattered, and they endured months without essential heating.
Police deemed the fire accidental, and no arrests were made.
The couple is accusing the building’s owner and property managers of negligence, tenant harassment, and violating the warranty of habitability, among other claims. It’s unclear how much money the couple seeks through the lawsuit.
The management company did not respond to a request for comment in time for this report.
