Insurance Company rejects CBO and Structural Engineering Findings 3

[BVWayne]

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.



Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[flgulfcoasteng]

My 2 cents:

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.

 

[BVWayne]

Flgulfcoasteng, thanks for the reply. I love discussing Building Code, and I like that you have knowledge of the code.

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

 

[dik]

Wayne... I get a 'blank' when I try to download the page.

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

 

[Ron]

SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. A condition where:

1. In any story, the elements of the lateral-force-resisting system, in any direction and taken as a whole, have suffered damage such that the lateral load-carrying capacity has been reduced by more than [highlight]20 percent[/highlight] from its pre-damaged condition, or

2. The vertical load-carrying components supporting more than 30 percent of the structure's floor or roof area have suffered a reduction in vertical load-carrying capacity to [highlight]below 75 percent[/highlight] of the Florida Building Code, Building required strength levels calculated by either the strength or allowable stress method.

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.

 

[dik]

I get the same effect when I scan the obverse side <G>.

Dik

 

[BVWayne]

You know, I need to brush up on how to use this site. Sorry about the attachment. It was a pdf, not sure if that is ok to upload. Ron - wow, couldn't have done it better myself. Since, I have over 30% damage, I was referring to that, but you are absolutely dead on correct. I know the code and love to work with it, but sometimes I lack the finesse in actually explaining it. This was the case with the insurance adjuster. He just couldn't get it and I think when the reports came, he was overwhelmed and now is looking for sometone to dispute it. But, we all know the code and in the end, we all live and die by it, right? OK, so my last day to play in DC before I get to work. There's a place called Ben's Chili House. Apparently, it's all really bad food for ya... and recently visited by the President. Wife still wants french... chili sounds awfully good...

Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[Ron]

Wayne...if you got BBQ last week in St. Augustine, you might be pushing your luck on the foo foo. As for the chili, if it's bad for ya, it's good!

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"!!

 

[BVWayne]

I have a County right now that doesn't want to follow code, so they try and go over your head and threaten to drop a contract. What's interesting is, you have to report them. Just better to follow the code, do what is right and move ahead. Unfortunately, there is always someone out there willing to tell them they don't have to do something. I won't compromise. Business however, like politics, is an area where influence is always trying to be used to get something you shouldn't. I have a Code of Ethics and unfortunately, some designers, architects don't care about the code. Ok, I'm off the soap box, got a little lightheaded up there. It was gorgeous today in Maryland. The colors are incredible and rolling hills... why are we in Florida again?

Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[dik]

Ron... how do you think I knew how it was done! <G>

 

[Ron]

Wayne, I can relate. I have one where a CBO condemned a newly constructed building based on an engineering analysis.... and didn't require a load test. I pointed out to him that he didn't have a choice...the code says that if analysis finds a building to be structurally deficient, you have to load test it. The engineer who did the analysis (which I thought was a complete and thorough analysis, it just had some potentially flawed data), recommended that they not do a load test. Photos at the site during construction showed the suspect members loaded with pallets of block and a loaded forklift sitting on it. Hmmm...seems like if it was so severely deficient it would have at least cracked the concrete! Load test has now been ordered by the CBO.

Ron

 

[BVWayne]

When they try and go over my head, the standard response from the uppers is, "I'm (they) are not the Building Official". I try and be nice. I even offer to go over it again in person with whomever seems to be giving them wrong information. I have one "false information" guy who is the one that gives them false hopes. He's a fire guy, and his info is based on fire regulations. We all know that when both codes affect an issue, it's the Florida Building Code that supercedes. Anyway, this is simply part of the job. I feel like having flash cards printed, so when they ask the same question, I simply flash the card. Ron, I'll be in Greenbuild 2009 in Phoenix this year. Any chance you'll be going?

Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[Ron]

Wayne,
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

 

[BVWayne]

I guess after reading your schedule, I need to stop thinking I'm busy. Glad to hear the recession has someone busy. I'll definitely let you know when I'm back in the area.

Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[dik]

and if you think Ron's busy... talk to Jeff!

Dik

 

[BVWayne]

Jeff? I don't think I've met someone on here named Jeff yet. Dik, are you in Florida too?

Wayne D. Smith, Jr., CBO, MCP, CEAP, LEED AP

 

[flgulfcoasteng]

BVWAYNE, thanks for the feedback. I would be interested in hearing what your code commentary says regarding the exceptions under 101.5. I believe every time I get into the EBC I end up with an entirely different interpretation, and I appreciate another set of eyes.

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.

 

[dik]

Wayne... JAE is another of the oldtimers on this forum...

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

 

[Ron]

Not "slammed" busy, just have a quirky schedule that doesn't allow much for travel.

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?

 

[dik]

Wayne:
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

 

[BVWayne]

Dik - you're happy about -40 mornings? I had considered retiring to Canada, but now, I might just stay in Florida. Free healthcare isn't worth the -40 in the mornings... I hear it's beautiful and I hope to take the wife on vacation some day.

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