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

 

[dik]

Other than a few patches, the snow's melted. We usually don't get our permanent snowfall until near the end of the month. Just in time for Halloween...

Dik

 

[BVWayne]

flgulfcoast -- I'm pretty clear on the code, so I understand where my case stands. What exactly are you questioning? Maybe it's the long drive, and my mind is shot, but I'm not clear on what you're saying exactly. If you're talking about another situation, I'll need some background on it before I give you my opinion.

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

 

[BVWayne]

Guys, I think I should have taken the wife for French food in St. Augustine... She cornered me into taking her in Manhattan and we ended up at a place called Le Cirque (avoid it guys)... I had 7 courses, about a quarter size each one... and when the bill came, I actually lost my appetite. I believe that enough french food for the next decade. Headed back to Florida, just past South of the Border.

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

 

[Ron]

Wayne,
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

 

[flgulfcoasteng]

BVWayne, good afternoon. I think I muddled my opinion in my last post. The underlying message I wanted to illustrate was:

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://files.engineering.com/getfil...9e54-4a28-bbb3-f2cbfba61607&file=EBCDissc.pdf

- Best wishes.

 

[flgulfcoasteng]

... Oh, and assuming you are above BFE and we are not discussing FEMA requirements.

 

[dik]

BFE?

Dik

 

[flgulfcoasteng]

BFE = Base Flood Elevation

 

[dik]

Thanks... Dik

 

[BVWayne]

Hey guys. I just don't know what to think. I took the day off and observed the forensic engineer with his assistant, and all I saw them do was map out the trusses. No other test readings, no moisture meter, NOTHING. This is frustrating, because I would expect that a forensics guy would utilize more than a digital camera.

Your thoughts?

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

 

[dik]

It's difficult to second guess an engineer, sometimes.

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.

 

[Ron]

Wayne,
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

 

[rowingengineer]

I hate to ask but how old was this engineer? Guess will do. From experience you need to have been around the block a few times to know what u need to do at the crime scene. If you haven’t had you pants pulled down a few times then you are willing to just use judgement and photos. Probably shouldn't judge him on age alone, but from experience, experience counts.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it

 

[dik]

I should have been more emphatic than, "Slam dunk. I dunno", and I concur with your comments, thanks Ron. You can never have too much information. Samples can be retained until trial end.

 

[dik]

This may not be applicable in this instance, but, I should have also noted that this is not the time to select on the basis of the lowest tendered price... I'm a firm believer in 'You get what you pay for'.

Dik

 

[BVWayne]

Thanks guys for the input. I believe the term forensics should go way beyond visual opinions. I might be wrong, but common sense tells me that forensics has to check for everything. I do not age discriminate. If anything, I like experience and that comes with age and time in your field. Mapping out the trusses, to me, was not testing. So, in this process, I feel and am probably right that he will have made a determination, as did the insurance company, that they have been able to repair worse. So, I am prepared for whatever the forensic engineer comes up with and if necessary will demand that the trusses be tested. I'm in this til the end, and anyone that wishes to risk their professional reputation on behalf of an insurance company is more than welcome to do so. But, when I make a determination, especially when I'm dealing with the building of schools, I don't cut corners and if I'm wrong, I'd rather err on the side of safety. Too many in all industries are in it for the short term benefits and they don't realize that we have a code of ethics. Just imagine how many grandmothers have had their fire damaged homes painted and patched, and have no idea that their structure is high risk. This is Florida. I don't expect much from this report we're all waiting for, but one thing that they should expect is that they better have something more than someone's visual opinion, because forensics should mean testing. In our profession (Ron you will agree), there is a reason for doing testing, reports and having signed sealed documents from experts in the field. I wouldn't have sent a sink-hole specialist to access truss damage. You will have a posted report on here and if it comes back refuting the damage, this posting is going to get real interesting, because I have the time and money to hire experts in this field. I refuse to allow an insurance company to do to me, what they have continued to do to individuals who do not have our knowledge, or resources to protect ourselves. Report has been promised by November 1st. Ron, if you work with any particular attorney specializing in this type of litigation... feel free to refer. Later guys.


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

 

[Ron]

Wayne...I certainly agree.

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

 

[dik]

Can you post a couple of photographs of the damage. One overall and a closeup of the typical char area?

 

[rowingengineer]

BVWayne,
you can comment to Ron in his faq592-162.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that them like it

 

[Ron]

RE...thanks...I forgot about that!