Roof Collapse Insurance Coverage and Load Test 2

[B16A2]

I think this is somewhat technical, so I'll try this forum. A decade ago, an owner hired an architect to modify a building that causes snow drift load on areas that weren't designed for snow drift. Everything over the 10 years of winters and snow is fine. Then a snowstorm that dumps snow EXCEEDING the code blows into town and brings the building down. A post collapse analysis shows the existing members didn't have strength to meet the code loading.

How would you expect the owner's property insurance to handle this? Knee jerk thought is "SOL owner", but could this fall under load test clauses in the code since it survived for 10 years of loading (that included snow loadings up to the code limits)?

 

[Brad805]

I would expect the professionals to get sued and end up paying dearly. The ten year argument is meaningless. Just because the area was loaded during ten previous seasons does not mean it was loaded to capacity.

Brad

 

[Ron]

Well, Brad805, the 10-year argument might mean everything! Most states have a statute of repose for design professionals and contractors. In my state it is...10 years. After that time period the design professional cannot be sued for design defects and contractors can't be sued for construction defects. You need to understand that a statute of repose and a statute of limitations are two different things. The statute of limitations usually starts when you become aware of something or when you should have reasonably become aware of something. It is usually only about 4 years in many states in the US. The statute of repose is often encompassing to the statute of limitations, meaning that if you found some defect in year 8, the statute of limitations to bring claim would be two years instead of the full statute if longer than 2 years, assuming your statute of repose is 10 years. These periods vary by state...some are less, some are more. You'll have to check.

I'm not sure where B16A2 is located, but will need to check the state law there if in the US. Might not be an issue.

As for the insurance company, they might initially deny coverage because of the design defect, but it goes a bit deeper than that (no pun intended on the snow load!). Most insurance companies will insure without inspection or determination of code compliance. If this can be proved for this particular insurance company, then they might be compelled to pay...but those are legal issues best left to the lawyers. Worth looking into in any case.

 

[dik]

Thanks, Ron...

I'm not aware of any limitations for jurisdictions in Canada. Can anyone advise me of provinces that have legally imposed limitations to liability?

Dik

 

[a2mfk]

To add to what Ron said, at least in the US the insurance company will almost always hire a forensic engineer to do an investigation, especially of a collapse or something with a large payout. Depending on the engineer's findings, they may pay the claim or not. They may pay the claim EVEN if the investigating engineer determined there was a design or construction flaw of some sort. They then may opt to subrogate against the party they think is actually at fault, to get their money back from the claim.

I'd be very surprised if all of these roof collapses don't get investigated thoroughly by an engineer, maybe from all involved parties. I have done investigations of cracks in ceramic floor tile for insurance companies, so imagine a collapsed building.

 

[Brad805]

Yes, Ron, I can agree that the laws could make the time frame critical for the professionals. I was responding moreso to the implication that the structure has been load tested. Where I am located we have had a small percentage of our histroical annual snowfall for the past ten years, but that sure is not the case this year.

In Canada this would turn out to be an interesting case if the claim was large enough. If the claim were less than say $500k, I doubt it would make it to trial. It is sad how many cases are settled because of legal fees.

Dik, I know the western provinces do not have any statues of repose for our services. Many have added this into their contracts. There have been cases that have tested these clauses, and most of the time they hold up. You can find some recommendations in the DPIC contract guide.

Brad

 

[Ron]

a2...have done the same....amazing how many times our real task is education, rather than technical sabre rattling.

 

[JAE]

Brad - I would add a tidbit - in a technical sense the roofs haven't "officially" or properly been load tested. A load test, in the structural engineer's vocabulary, is a specific action taken to ensure that the structure has the capacity to support, safely, a given load.

A series of "big" snowfalls doesn't ensure anything as I'm sure the actual in-place snow wasn't measured for depth and density and the loading compared to the code-required loading.

The building codes have specific steps to be taken to load test - usually a test load which is higher than the design load by some percentage, held in place, with deflection measurements both during and after (rebound) the test loading application.

Just suggesting here that the term "load test" not be used too loosely in the context of engineering.

 

[Brad805]

JAE: Please add "...implication by the OP...." to my last comment. I don't think this structure was load tested after experiencing 10 years of service loads.

Brad

 

[dik]

Catch the file...

 

[hokie66]

A Statute of Repose is not always the last word. In Minnesota, Jacobs Engineering is still facing a lawsuit in the I35W bridge collapse, due to an indemnity given to the state by its predecessor firm.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13035...firm-not-free-of-bridge-claim?redirected=true

 

[dik]

In Canada, the typical design loads are for a 1 in 50 year return period. Seems odd that exposure to liability would be limited to, in some cases, 1/10 of that time period. It is likely that a structure will never see the design loading in the reduced time period.

Dik

 

[Brad805]

Too many lawyers at any party will ruin all the fun. It is pretty easy to dig through the mass of info after the fact not taking into account anything constraints applied by the various parties involved in a project.

Dik, thanks for posting that summary.

Brad

 

[BAretired]

dik,

The Province of Alberta has a statute of limitations. Here is a link to a PDF discussing it:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...y1sl08H9A&sig2=A6eUGR2whKevsjmdw1t2pA&cad=rja

I have been under the impression that it acts as a statute of repose, but is not called by that name. If Ron is correct, then what is the point of having a statute of limitations?

I note that Ontario, Manitoba and Canada have statutes of limitations, but have not read them.

BA

 

[dik]

Thanks... I wasn't aware of that...

Dik

 

[Ron]

BAretired....the statute of limitations runs within the statute of repose. As an example, let's say a building was completed 2 years ago. Suppose there is a defective design condition leading to water intrusion. You know there's water intrusion because it leaks. You are now on notice that you have a problem...it has been discovered. The statute of limitations timer starts ticking. You have 4 years to bring a claim against the offending party, in this case the Architect. You have a contractor come in and repair the leaking area. It doesn't visibly leak anymore, but it is still dumping water into the wall cavity in small amounts causing insidious structural deterioration...you don't know that though.

You don't bring a claim against the architect because you think it is fixed. Five years later, the wall starts to buckle because of wood framing deterioration. You are barred from claiming under the statute of limitations, but because the design defect was not really repaired, and is causing deterioration, you still have the protection of the statute of repose. You can file a claim against the Architect.

Let's take the same scenario and move the time line. Instead of leaking in 1 year, it takes 8 years for the leaks to show. Problem repaired. You now have only two years to bring claim since the statute of repose expires in 2 years and it is the over-reaching constraint. You do not claim against the architect and 3 years later the wall starts to buckle. No claim available against anyone.

 

[dik]

Ron:

Thanks for your earlier reply and new comment. Until this posting, I wasn't aware that this type of legislation existed in other jurisdictions, let alone Alberta, Canada.

Dik

 

[Brad805]

Ron, I would also like to thank you for taking the time to reply to BA's question. This was very helpful.

Brad

 

[BAretired]

Ron, I thank you too as I believe you have the correct interpretation for thosejurisdictions which have a Statute of Repose. In the case of Alberta, however, we do not have a separate document called "Statute of Repose". It appears to me that the repose document is contained within our Statute of Limitations, but I cannot argue the case too vehemently as I have already discovered a judge and two lawyers with different opinions.

Dik, the Alberta Statute of Limitations is relatively new legislation, enacted in 1999. Some years ago, I attended a professional liability seminar in which the speaker advised the attendees that this was good news for architects and engineers as it limited our liability to ten years from the time the service was provided. Now, I am not so sure they were right.

Manitoba has a draft form of Statute of Limitations as seen in the following document:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc/reports/actions_act.pdf

I do not know if it has been enacted yet and have not read it in detail, but in the introductory remarks, it appears that several provinces have similar legislation.

BA

 

[Brad805]

BA, do you know if BC is doing the same? I don't like thinking about being sued once I retire. An ex-boss was forced to get involved in legal action for work done more than 20years ago, and he was not thrilled at all.

I should have thanked you earlier too. I didn't know about the AB rules. It is almost like we need legal council on staff nowadays. When I signed up for this line of work all I wanted to do is build things. How naive I was.

Brad