Disputed Repairs

[SteelPE]

I have a project that was damaged during some snow storms last year. I was asked to look at the building by the owner after a request from the building official. I did a visual inspection of the building and highlighted the areas of concern, gave the owner a repair detail and went about my business.

Since my visit, the owner hired a public insurance adjuster. The insurance company hired their own forensics engineer and the project has turned into a big mess as they fight amongst themselves. Now, seven months later, no work has been completed and the forensics engineer has disputed some of the areas I had concerns with.

My question is in terms of liability. If I recommend a repair to the owner, and the insurance company hires a forensics engineer who says the repairs are not needed, who is then responsible for the work that does or does not get done?

 

[connect2]

I would say the Municipality, the Chief Building Official. They are the only ones with the power to enforce the building code act on their property owners. The Chief Building Official must make the decision about the two differing opinions. You can only give your considered opinion and on the record. And then the Municipality takes over.

 

[JStructsteel]

Correct, I assume your letter went to the building official, and if your repair gets the building back to inhabitable state, then he or she can decide if other options are viable. Just walk away, and say you have done your scope.

 

[jike]

I assume that the repairs were not associated with the original design and your original design contract was fulfilled. Since two opinions were solicited and they differ then the building official will have to decide which one to follow. Whoever puts his stamp on the repairs will be liable. Was your review just a report/proposal or was it in the form of stamped drawings and spec?

 

[Jerehmy]

my question is, if this goes to court, could SteelPE be called upon to testify on behalf of his inspection and report? We do inspections for insurance companies and sometimes have to do this.

also, could SteelPE say "no, i dont want to testify"?

 

[SteelPE]

It's just a weird situation. The insurance company is fighting the owner every step of the way hence the public adjuster.... which only makes things worse. I was hired to do an inspection and come up with a repair which I did. Now 7+ months later nothing has been done and they are still fighting. I was forced to go to a meeting on Monday which is when I found out nothing has been done yet. I told them something needed to be done soon as winter is approaching.

Thinking about things after the meeting I came up with this question. In 15 years in the business I have never run across a similar situation. It seems to me like the engineering company the insurance company brought in would be on the hook, but I am not so sure.

This can't be the first time this has ever happened.

 

[hokie66]

These type of issues often end up in the courts. If it is big enough, the owner needs a lawyer as much as he needs an engineer. That's what lawyers do, fight insurance companies.

 

[SteelPE]

And that is why the there was a meeting yesterday, so the owner's lawyer can get a lay of the land.

Regardless, I'm just wondering who would be on the hook if one says yes, the other says no?

 

[nutte]

On the hook for what? You can't compel the owner to do anything. If there was a severe event leading to a failure of some sort, I don't see how you can be responsible for anything. After all, you recommended the owner make repairs.

 

[Ron]

SteelPE....this is the world I live in. If you recommend a repair and the forensic engineer then disputes your repair and they proceed with his/her repair scheme, your liability is reduced and likely gone. If they implement your fix, then you are on the hook. If they partially implement your fix and bastardize it with some changes, then raise hell and deny all liability for the fix....in writing.

If the forensic engineer is recommending something that compromises the safety of the public, then you have an obligation to object to its implementation and you need to put such objection in writing.

 

[Guastavino]

SteelPE,

I haven't read all of this thread so forgive me if this was already said. Have you considered writing a letter to the building official (copying the other parties) and stating your concerns, etc. That way, you are on record with the building inspector. Force them to make the decision. If they go with the other engineers opinion, I feel like the liability is on you. If anything happens later, you just pull out your letter to the building official.

 

[connect2]

'The safety of the Public is paramount'.

For an interesting take on this do a search on 'Elliot Lake Ontario, Mall Collapse'. The interplay between Owner(s), Municipality, various Consuting Engineers, Contractors etc., over time, is fascinating. Tragically and sadly I think two people were killed when the mall roof/parking lot finally collapsed.

You can't hold a gun to anybodies head, you can't baricade and prevent access to the structure...well you can, but you don't want to go there. Go to the Municipality state your concerns verbally and in writing and they should/will/are obligated by law take over. If for what ever reason they don't/won't or are incompetent in carrying out their duties and nothing is happening in a timely manner, consult the professional organization that governs/regulates you and also advise your insurer of your concerns.

Dot your i's and cross your t's and be sure you have your ducks in a row and are correct about your concerns, beause if you don't .... well you have a whole different set of 'problems' on your hands than you thought.

 

[gte447f]

SteelPE, I agree with Ron. You are liable for your work, therefore if they elect to follow your recommendations, then you are "on the hook". You are not liable for the work of anyone else (unless they are your subconsultant... not the case here), so if they elect to follow the other engineer's recommendations, then you are not liable for the outcome. However, you could still be liable for the outcome of them following the other engineer's recommendation if it rose to the level of endangering the safety, health or welfare of the public. In at least one of the states where I am registered, the rules and regulations of the state say, "If a registrant's engineering or land surveying judgment is overulled under circumstances where the safety, health or welfare of the public are endangered, he/she shall inform the proper authorities and his/her employer of the situation as may be appropriate." So, if you think the consequences of your engineering judgment being overruled in this case could result in endangering the public, then you should inform the proper authorities. If you do that, then I believe your liability would be eliminated.