Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
(OP)
I am a Florida CBO who recently had a housefire that heated the interior of the building to over 900 degrees for approx. 45 minutes. The fire did not penetrate the drywall membrane of the trusses, but did dry-out the core of the drywall (calvinization). There was bat insulation which held residual heat for hours beyond the period of time the fire department extinguished the fire. The trusses have shown signs of charring and discoloration of the gusset plates of the trusses. As a professional, I hired a structural engineer to access the damage and he concluded that the fire compromised the trusses and since more than 30% of the trusses require replacement, this is now a Level - 3 Alteration according Florida Building Code Existing. Insurance company states that the trusses just don't look that bad and they have repaired worse. I have attached a Fire Model for those of you interested in heat damage to trusses. Your comments are welcome and appreciated. Particular comments to why trusses don't have to look so charred to be compromised would be especially helpful.
I believe this is an issue because I have Code Insurance on my policy and if they agree to the truss replacement, they will then have to bring the entire structure up to current code.
I believe this is an issue because I have Code Insurance on my policy and if they agree to the truss replacement, they will then have to bring the entire structure up to current code.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP





RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Hate to be the devil's advocate here, but Figures 2 and 3 have this statement:
"Temperature reflects the internal temperature of the lumber at the time the load was increased until failure."
To me, this seems to address the loss in strength when the lumber is heated, not after the fire when it has cooled, which is the apparent bone of contention.
Am I missing something here?
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Point Two - Bob White has probably done more research on fire damage to wood than anyone in the country.
Point Three - Truss plates pull away from the truss during a "heat event" and that alone reduces the capacity of a truss significantly.
Check the other publications of the Forest Products Lab on fire effects...you'll validate your rejection of the existing trusses.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
The wood may have been damaged by pyrolysis which reduces it's strength and impact resistance as well as increasing the likelihood of it starting on fire a second time.
Keep us posted and if I get a chance to dig 'em up, I have several publications on structure fires... They're packed in cardboard boxes in the basement... I've done many reports on fires.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Home > Forums > Engineering Codes, Standards & Certifications > Engineering Codes, Standards & Certifications > NDS/AITC (Wood Construction) Code Issues Forum
How does heat/fire affect wood strength?
thread173-220260: How does heat/fire affect wood strength?
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I couldn't find my current copy...
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
One other thing to note is this is potentially a "public safety" issue. Your engineer needs to note that under Florida law, he has an obligation to report the insurance adjuster's decision to the engineer's supervisor (if he has one), the adjuster's supervisor, and since you are the CBO and you're already aware of it, he needs to take it to the insuror's governing body...the state insurance commissioner.
Under Florida Administrative Code, Rule 61G15, paragraph 19.001(6)(l), the engineer can be fined for misconduct if he does not report it.
(l) if his engineering judgment is overruled by an unqualified lay authority with the results that the public health and safety is threatened, failure by a professional engineer to inform his employer, responsible supervision and the responsible public authority of the possible circumstances;
You might also want to get an opinion of a another engineer as well...
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Please let us know what the engineer for the insurance company says and also what your third-party engineer says. You have an issue that might need to go to the state board level. It already needs to go to the insurance commissioner. Insurance adjusters should not be practicing engineering and to let them get away with it is not right.
Being an engineer in Florida, specializing in construction forensics, I have a significant interest in the outcome of this situation.
Thanks,
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Best to get any and all info before things start to get nasty and people start to tighten up on disclosing info. Your engineer should be able to do that for 'background' for his engineering report.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Make sure that if it gets to the litigation level, that your attorney is a construction lawyer. I've seen clients waste money on a good real estate or contracts attorney, only to find that they needed a junkyard dog who chews concrete.
What part of Florida are you in?
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Yeah, I'm looking forward to his report as well. I'm in Duval County and most of our work is in Duval/St. Johns. We have an office in Orlando as well, doing work in Central and South Florida. As with you, we pretty much cover the state. I have two projects in Kissimmee.
This one is interesting...let's see how it pans out.
Enjoy your conference.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
He was wondering how the trusses sustained 900F temperatures for 45 minutes? Are there good records of the time and temperature?
His normal practice for fire damaged roof trusses is that if there is any significant charring, the truss is suspect and should be removed.
If the plates have moved, then he used an example that if the gap is less than a credit card, the strength of the connection is likely there, but the strength rapidly falls off for larger gaps.
He also noted the reduction in strength as well as a loss of ductility. As a bit of a surprise, apparently trusses that are treated with a fire retardant material lose strength faster.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I think all firetrucks should have a box of hotdogs and marshmallows on the front seat...
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I did a truss evaluation in Orlando some years back and the truss plate institute has a similar requirement to what dik pointed out. When the gap exceeds about an eighth of an inch, the capacity goes way down! That can come from wetting/drying, fire or mishandling. In any case, the result is strength reduction.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Always have someone watch the other side when they do their observations. That way you can decide how thoroughly they checked things, you can see their methodology, you can see if he measures or even looks at the gap, you can see if he tries to determine the depth of charring, you can see if he does any moisture content testing, you can see if he tries to correlate the physical evidence with other observations (i.e., melted plastics, discoloration of metals, spalling concrete, etc.....all of these are indications of thermal conditions, so he needs to check them).
Don't lead the guy to anything. Don't talk to him, don't give opinions...just watch and be quiet. If he's good, he'll show it. If he's a shyster, he'll hang himself.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Be nice and delete the ones that make the guy look fat.
Dik,
I'm with you on this, mashmellows by an open fire, beer in hand and a steak on the BBQ, dam fine dinning in my opinion.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I'm in St. Augustine today and just want to forget this house problem. And, now this thread has me craving some good BBQ.
You guys are too funny.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Now, that's funny.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
That is funny.
Wayne...as for video and photos, it's your house you do what you want and don't worry about them. A little close scrutiny might keep the engineer from being stupid.
Now go get some good BarBQ at Bono's, Sonny's, or Woody's in St. Augustine. All are good, each a little different than the others. Not impressed with Bono's ribs, but other stuff is good.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
No, wish I could make it to the BOAF meeting. I work closely with the NE Florida Chapter, particularly on stucco issues. Dan Arlington, in St. Johns County, has done a good job of getting more recognition for that issue and the lack of awareness of the subcontractors/contractors.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
1. In a similar fire repair plan with the information provided I would require the trusses to be replaced.
2. Regarding the 30% rule (807.5.2) requiring the entire structure to be evaluted to the current wind loading, my first reaction is to ask whether the insurance company may reduce the required level of repair if they apply the new 2007 FBC, Existing Building, Ch 3 requirements "Prescriptive Compliance Method" (PCM)instead of the "Work Area Compliance Method" (WACM)(Ch 4 to 12)?
As I understand it, the PCM only requires new, replaced, or repaired components to meet the current code requirements but does not require a general upgrade of the structure. This, of course, assumes that the loading remains unchanged (less than 5% increaase).
This new CH 3 PCM appears to be very generous at first glance, but pherhaps I ma missing something crucial.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
The PCM can not apply to buildings that are substantially damaged (30%) or more, because it is stated under Section 101.5 Exceptions.
Furthermore, in the Commentary for the 2007 Florida Existing Building Code, this is further explained on page 3-1 and 3-2, which I have attached for everyone's review.
Please note that an insurance company has no legal right to interpret the Florida Building Code. This is also stated under Florida Statute 553.775.
Your last comment was that you thought the PCM was generous at first glance. I think what might make the difference here are the exceptions. The exceptions are in 101.5.
I would welcome commentary from other Building Officials on this matter, if any are reading this. I will also get BOAF's remarks on this and when I get a reply, I will post it.
Thanks again guys... Ron, Dik... report from the insurance company's hired engineering firm is soon to come.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Ron will likely have a better handle on this, being familiar with the jurisdiction and relevant codes.
Essentially, any comments from myself would be related to technical opinion and reference material.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I also got a blank on that attachment.
Wayne, since the trusses carry both lateral and vertical loads, you only have to meet the 20 percent requirement for Substantial Structural Damage. Further, I'm not sure of you house configuration, but if you have any gabled ends, it will be fairly easy to meet any of the definitions of damage if the diagonal bracing is compromised.
One other provision of the FBCEB is that trusses cannot be altered, notched or cut....the fire has altered and likely notched the trusses. Must be replaced.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
dik...I've unfortunately scanned blank paper before...I think it was a subtle way of something telling me it matched my brain at the time!
Wayne...the report is going to be an interesting read! If he agrees with the insurance company he's got professional problems. If he doesn't agree, he has to do a good job of referencing all the necessary code provisions as to why, just for CYA. Anyone can have an opinion, but fortunatel or unfortunately, professional opinions have to be founded a bit lower than the stratosphere. Shouldn't be an issue in Florida...we don't have any "thin air"!!
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Would love to attend a few conferences; however, my practice is pretty busy and I'm starting to write a book on stucco, as well as being on two ASTM committees.
Next time you're in the Jax area, let me know.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
As I understand the exceptions under 101.5, they state that you can use the existing laws from the time of construction (old codes and laws) for alterations unless (1.)there is substantial damage or (2.) there is more than a limited alteration. Therefore, for substantial damage you could not use the "old codes or laws", but may still use any one of the three methods as cited above the exceptions, PCM included.
Good point in noting that the insurance company is not the one with authority to choose the compliance method. I suppose this is more of an academic look at the options. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I am fortunate to live in an area without tornadoes, heat and hurricanes... I live in sunny Winnipeg, Canada. There is some compensation for your terrible climate... we can have clear sunny winter mornings of -40 degrees... but you get used to it. I haven't figgured out why some Canadians winter in Florida <G>.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
With forensic work, after the evaluation is done, the litigation support is what screws with your schedule. It's generally an inefficient process where you do preparation work, delays ensue, then you have to go back and do some of the same preparation work again, because it might be 6 months or 2 years between the activities.
dik...assume you're referring to our very sharp corn husking colleague?
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Any news on the reports? Just to let you know that we have a couple of inches of snow and it's snowing fairly solidly... We'll see what the morning brings...
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
As for the reports, the engineer will be out on Friday. Report will probably take a week.
You guys will see it right after I do.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I have over 30% structural damage = this means that the structure would have to be brought up to CURRENT code, especially since I paid for the code insurance they sold me on ages ago and I'm a person who knows what that means.
Are you saying that you believe that even if a structure is over 30% damaged, that it only has to be brought up to it's original code?
I refer to the Florida Building Code Comments and ICC commentary for my determinations. I'm guessing you're in Florida and use the same commentary. (flgulfcoast...)
I'm definitely interested in where you're going with this, because I fully expect that they are looking for loopholes as we chat on this topic.
Ron - think they'll find any loopholes in the FL Building Code?
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I think you're solid under the damage aspect of the code. As I stated earlier, you have only to meet the 20 percent requirement.
Can they find loopholes? Yes, they'll try. While certainly open to interpretation, a proper argument will show you're correct.
South of the Border? At least you're getting back into civilization!!
BBQ beats foo foo every time! For $20 you can eat enough that you can't even drive home!!
Have a safe trip.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
When choosing the compliance method (three to choose from), IF the Prescriptive Compliance Method (Ch 3) was chosen instead of the Work Are Compliance Method (CH 4 to 12) then a complete structural upgrade would NOT be required. The plan could repair or replace the damaged components.
There are no thresholds of work, damage, or alteration limits or levels that I know of within PCM CH 3 that would "trigger" a need to bring the entire structure up to code as there are in WACM CH4 to 12.
Assumptions:
1. Geometry / layout is the same such that existing member loadings do not increase more than 5%
2. Compliance w/ applicable provision of the Florida Fire Prevention Code
For convenience, I have attached a portion of the code I was discussing.
http://
- Best wishes.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Your thoughts?
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
It may be that the photographs show all that is needed... Overall condition, best and worst areas affected, separation of truss plates, etc. Might be a 'slam dunk'; I dunno. Have you asked him about other testing or what his opinion is? Is he planning to do other work? I have often measured up a site with the intent of making a second visit to gather additional dimensional information (I sometimes miss critical dimensions) as well as picking up samples and marking the information on a print of a drawing prepared from the initial measurements. It also gives me a second visit to possibly spot something missed earlier.
I'm speaking out of ignorance (in a classic sense). I haven't seen the condition of the trusses or, for that matter, anything. I don't know if the trusses are badly charred or slightly smoke discoloured. From the time and the temperature, I would suspect the former. I don't know if there is any separation of the connection plates or how much. I don't know the effect of the heat on the connection plates over an extended period of time. Lots of things I don't know.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik raises some good points; however, I have also seen engineers go into an investigation with pre-conceived notions or opinions, and gathering good data is the least of their intentions. I don't know if that's the case here, but if you decide to press this issue with litigation, he puts his client in a position of only relying on his opinion rather than having factual data that can easily be obtained by another engineer that could refute his opinion. His answer for not taking the data will be "I didn't need to...I could see that there was no problem".
I would have expected several significant observations, beyond the dimensional, that would allow his client to make a decision. Those would be depth of charring, connector plate pullout or recession, and drying shrinkage that creates member gaps.. The first requires sampling with a coring tool as Dik described or a plug corer attached to a drill, while the others requires a precision ruler and feeler gauge (like you would use for spark plug gap measurement). I would also pull at least one of the plates to determine the ease of pullout (qualitative assessment, not a pull test) and to see if there was any residual stress in the plate, particularly in the direction opposite its normal force action (showing either plate expansion or wood shrinkage to compromise the plate).
Fire damage can be very concentrated so particular attention needs to be given to the "hot spots", relative to the other areas. All metals need to be checked, fasteners need to be checked, wood shrinkage, warp, sap bleed, charring, and interaction with sheathing.
Hopefully they did most of these things and will come back to finish, as Dik noted. The report will certainly be an interesting read!
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Contact me through Eng-Tips and I'll give you some South Florida attorneys to contact. I've worked with several in Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Naples, West Palm Beach as well as Central and North Florida.
If you have any problems contacting me through Eng-Tips, post again and I'll post a blind email that you can contact me through and I'll then give you my email address and phone contact.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
you can comment to Ron in his FAQ592-162: What causes random cracks in floor slabs..
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
That's just a devious way of sending a message to Ron without anybody else seeing it, as he is the author of the FAQ and fields suggestions about it.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
On the other hand, there are a couple of "Forensic Engineers" in this line of work that tend to be pretty bold with what they save. Before hiring a PA, suggest to the insurance company that you retain a third party engineer. If you don't have an issue with contents, the PA would only do structure anyway and you would lose a lot of your code upgrade dollars to their commission. The insurance co. might even pick up the tab on a 3rd party.
On a related note and if I could tap the knowledge and code gurus here...regarding code upgrade, from time to time I get questioned by the contractors when I add steel to unreinforced masonry walls on structures that are substantially damaged (and old!). My feeling and understanding is that if the structure is pre 80's or 70's (pre-SBC?) and is substantially damaged, it would be difficult (impossible?) to prove that the structure met the code requirements at that time. Therefore upgrade is required, and continuous load path to the foundation must be provided (i.e: steel). Everyone seems real quick to jump to upgrade wood framed homes and add straps, but a lot of people seem to get nervous when I ask them to drill some dowels in to the walls. Is it not the same thing?!?
I'll watch this thread and help if I can.
Scott
www.dbssinc.com
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
While the structural replacement might be more obvious and calculable, the replacement for inability to adequately clean the structural members is less so, but nonetheless important.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Any news?
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I'm giving them until after Thanksgiving and then I'm going to officially ask for the report.
Thanks.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
The link between the
Does the external mean "inside the paint"?, which is common term used for property and personal property.
What was the condition of the batt insulation? Surely if it was fiberglass, it would have been melted. If it was blown bulk cellulose, it may still be performing.
That temperature (radiant heat) and any lack of back-up is certainly a big point and easily attacked, especially relating to the interior wood temperatures behind the remains of a surface that still can block the radiant heat.
Perhaps the gypsum board manufactures (damage/duration) have information that the insurance company has discovered.
These cases can get very drawn out without professional engineering and legal advice. I am sure the insurance company has seen many similar situations.
Dick
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I have all the original reports I'd like to forward for your reference. I'll be posting for the enjoyment of everyone else that has taken an interest in this subject pics and reports to give you a better idea of what we're dealing with.
If we don't chat until Thanksgiving... May you have a great day.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Pretty much what we expected. I agree with not posting publicly.
As for contacting me, try the FAQ route as rowing engineer noted above....copy and paste this link or link directly from rowing engineer's post above.
http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=162
You should be able to leave a feedback comment to me in which you can leave your contact info...the comments are not public, so no one will see it that way. I'll call you as soon as I get the feedback. Post back in this forum when you've left the message and I'll check.
If I don't get it, I'll take another route to get the contact done.
Looking forward to this one.
Thanks,
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Can you post some pictures of the damage to your roof trusses?
SS
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Got a call from the insurance and the forensic guy they hired of course, did not agree on any of the reports. I got the news on my way up North. I am at a HUD meeting in DC all week and I haven't actually read their report.
It's all going to be interesting Dik, because I'm standing firm on what I believe and especially stand firm on everyone's credentials involved in this matter.
If an insurance company chooses to hire a sinkhole expert to give an opinion on trusses, then maybe I should go to an OBGYN for that tooth ache I have.
More to come. Hope everyone is enjoying their turkey sandwiches.
Wayne
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I'd like to speak with the guy after reading the report!!
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I've had different experience with different insurance companies. Some clients have been quite unreasonable and in my humble opinion... wrong.
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik, while my wife is unreasonable and sometimes, wrong... I sincerely doubt I'm wrong on these issues.
They clearly want to minimize their liability.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Btw, I have requested the engineer's CV (resume) and more detail will follow...
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
I've always advised clients and their customers that no matter who pays for the report, the report would essentially be the same; I don't take sides.
One of the problems with insurance is that their needs are generally different than your needs... you want proper protection... this is contrary to their wanting to maximise profits...
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
You guys have been great. I look forward to providing you all the details, along with photos so that this at the very least might be a learning experience, or simply a reason not to work with a particular insurance company.
My thoughts as of late is how all those Katrina victims must have felt trying to defend themselves from these insurance companies.
Dik, I take your advice to heart and I'm looking forward to getting this guys resume (CV). Hang in there, more is to come.
Thanks to everyone!
Especially Ron and Dik, for the kindness of your interest.
Have a great day. I'm back on the road...
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wanted to get some opinions on whether or not to do what he didn't do.
I really think that pink computers are just plain wrong!
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
The truss plates need to be checked carefully, as this is where you can get a significant capacity reduction, even when the truss materials seem to be relatively unaffected.
Ron
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Dik
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
- Install the downloaded program.
- Open the file, or web document/page you want to save in PDF format.
- Select "File-Print" as usual.
- In the print dialogue box, select PDF995 icon as printer, then "print".
- On the next dialogue box, type file name and select file location, then "Save".
BVWayne:
If you have images on memory chip/hard-drive, you can open the desirable image, save in a PDF with descriptive name. I think there are better programs for mass conversion though. I am in love with PDF995!
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
The length of time this post is being drawn out indicates a definite different of opinions and possible long term contest.
An insurance company does not have to accept every opinion and can outwardly reject any opinions since they probably also have well qualified professional reports from engineers that have a good expert witness record that goes beyond opinions and includes long term experience and documentation.
Codes have little to do this, since the code is only the worst way you can build (not necessarily appropriate) the best way and still be legal and is generally prescriptive in nature and not always based on technology, but tradition and ease of enforcement.
RE: Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings
Many posts ago, you told me to expect this to be long and drawn out... what I'm praying for is that they act in good faith and make me whole again. what they are trying to do is pay .30 on a dollar using a forensic firm that we have heard hasn't seen a roof yet that needs replacing...
So, I'm seeking advice from guys like you in the know. I believe in coming to a mutual understanding and would like to discuss it with the company. However, I just got the report and am told that if I disagree with any part of it, that they are going straight to appraisal. So, I don't even get to discuss it.
Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP