Basic Fact Pattern
- Development of multi-million dollar custom homes, including six homeowners all suing their builder and all of his subcontractors.
- Alleged construction defect in the varying exterior claddings resulting in systemic moisture intrusion and widespread underlying structural damage.
- Alleged violation of building codes and consumer protection (fraud) statutes.
- Exterior claddings included six differing combinations of hardcoat stucco, EIFS, wood trim, composite trim, brick veneer, adhered stone veneer, and custom windows.
- Alleged damaged included complete re-cladding of all six residences, along with treble damage associated with consumer protection.
- Minimal documentation was available from the builder, more than one decade after construction was completed.
- First opposing expert passed away, prior to completing his work, causing a second expert to be engaged, who offered slightly differing opinions.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18269/1826913d39e7fb35910f391895e16cbfba5cf678" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19c14/19c142f86d640f8c9ba2a50ccd2a38f6e65ff935" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/003d5/003d569028f1b91f731497ef3e5be8d0f1929814" alt=""
Investigative Actions Taken
- Each residence was inspected inside and out, and destructively tested for moisture intrusion and associated underlying damage.
- Interior thermal imaging and temperature and humidity surveys were conducted.
- Re-cladding of four residences was observed.
- Multiple code analyses were performed across the time periods from the first home to the last one.
- Each home was 3D modeled, with material take-offs performed for individual wall panel.
- The varying subcontractor structures for each home were reconstructed from the documentation produced by others in the matter.
- Detailed causation and code analysis tied each individual wall panel requiring remediation back to the cause(s) of the damage and the specific subcontractors responsible for the same.
- Extensive comparative analysis between the two plaintiff’s expert’s opinions, including completion of the training previously performed by the deceased one.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6b06/b6b0680fdc0df26a517299f2153256406f17284d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/401af/401af2d0b74495280e522cd072c939e6df66de5e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c1be/3c1bea919e40d8ec14c912f2332c65945c0ffc38" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffc43/ffc433cf1bbc253483a41389b92092a7ba808084" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12ef1/12ef1fdbc5311385a64b202486166a9a66d31876" alt=""
Determinations Made
- Construction defects and code violations were variable across the six homes, but none were systemic and widespread.
- Some interior damage was associated with maintenance, use, and building operation, rather than moisture intrusion through the exterior claddings.
- Remediation of all wall panels on all sides of all homes was not required.
- A customized scope of remediation was determined for each home, along with the total costs associated with performing the same.
- Diagrams capable of allowing a lay audience to understand both causation and damage distributions were created for each side of each home.
- All but two subcontractors were identified, with damages distributions determined for each.
Involved Experts:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7e51/c7e51995b34d9b8063babeff8eff405a89a5243d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35e85/35e856fa2313cd2a3f47194e6f6561f511e73559" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ca0/77ca0df5c7ba388693830607d989392989e40a99" alt=""