Residential Structural Repairs

[MacGruber22]

I am acting as expert witness to a lawsuit case. The skinny is: A whole lot of termite damage to floor joists occurred, and the contractor elected to notch/trim and splice joists back together in a haphazard manner (trying to avoid relocating mech and electrical work not in his/her scope). It is clear (to an engineer) by inspection that it doesn't meet the IRC or any rational engineering analysis. I am going to show by analysis examples why their repair attempts are insufficient for the building code-required loads, but I am also looking to show that the contractor was acting outside of their legal practice by attempting to make decisions which only a LDP may do - a much more egregious error. I am having a tough time connecting the dots to prove as such (County Code --> IRC/IEBC --> AWC NDS/WFCM). I am waiting to hear back from the county, but I am not really optimistic they will be able to answer my question as it does not pertain to a building they have to review for compliance.

-Mac

 

[JAE]

MacGruber22,
In my location/state there are set laws as to when an engineer is required to perform design. In the case of single and two-family residential, there is a square foot limit - so any single family residence that is less than 10,000 occupiable square feet (i.e. not the garage) does NOT need an engineer to design the building. Anything over that then an engineer is required.

In your case, it may be that the "carpentry" performed by the contractor is within a limit like that such that full engineering of framing isn't required by law.
That said, the carpenter still needs to meet the applicable code - the IRC for example - and if the work performed doesn't meet the IRC standards - which are really just simple span tables, detail requirements, etc. - then usually our city inspectors flag it and make the contractor get licensed engineering help.

I think that if they simply replaced the joists with new ones, then they would be "legal" in that they were simply doing IRC stuff, which any contractor can do.

On the other hand - since they spliced on sistered joists in a manner that is NOT covered in the IRC, then an engineer is required.
Look at section R301.1.3 Engineered design (IRC 2006) for the IRC's statement that when construction exceeds "the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice."....i.e. you'd need an engineer.

In other areas of the IRC Chapter 1, there's a lot of references to the building official having authority to demand additional tests, proofs, etc. if construction doesn't follow the formats and requirements of the IRC. So if the official questions something, an engineer could be required.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[P1ENG]

I'd start at the state level. Don't contractors need state licenses? I'm sure they then have rules/laws that let them know they have to get a DLP when deviating from the IRC. Otherwise I would refer to your state's Engineering rules/laws for people offering engineering services when not licensed. You will likely have to go through your state engineering board for that one.

Juston Fluckey, SE, PE, AWS CWI
Engineering Consultant

 

[MacGruber22]

JAE - thanks for the quick response. That paragraph in section R301.1.3 is what I was looking for. It is the same in IRC 2015.

I think that if they simply replaced the joists with new ones, then they would be "legal" in that they were simply doing IRC stuff, which any contractor can do.

Yeah, that is where they shot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately, they were also not too good at following even the prescriptive requirements, e.g. blocking, min. fasteners, etc.

...then usually our city inspectors flag it and make the contractor get licensed engineering help.

That would have saved this homeowner a lot of problems. I haven't even looked into the inspection requirements for residential structures in the county. I am almost certain that third party inspections are not required for this work.






-Mac

 

[MacGruber22]

I'd start at the state level. Don't contractors need state licenses? I'm sure they then have rules/laws that let them know they have to get a DLP when deviating from the IRC.

Yes, state-controlled. Great point - it reminds me that there is a contractor assisting the owner in fixing the "repairs" and providing testimony as an expert as well. I will certainly ask if they can look into that.

-Mac

 

[Forensic74]

This is an existing building. Do not make the common mistake I see many design engineers make of jumping to the new construction code without first consulting what is legally in place for existing buildings, such as Chapter J of the IRC, the IEBC, or often a special rehab code. Start there first and then reference the new construction code provisions where appropriate. A licensed engineer is not always required. Be aware that repairs to damaged elements do not necessarily have to be brought up to current new construction code.

Another issue I see is that you're an engineer opining on the standard of care of a contractor. This can get dicey in court.

 

[XR250]

Did the "contractor" pull a permit for the job? If not, was the homeowner aware of this? Alot of times in these cases, the homeowner gets a few quotes and then elects to go with the cheapest trunk slammer they could - getting exactly what they paid for.

 

[MacGruber22]

Forensic,

Chapter J in the IRC is useless. IEBC isn't useful because the building code references the IRC for repairs. My state threw out their custom existing building code back in 2012. Even if the IEBC was applicable, I don't think it provides me the language I was looking for.

Another issue I see is that you're an engineer opining on the standard of care of a contractor. This can get dicey in court.

I agree with 99.99% of that statement. However, I am not intending on arguing the particulars of their standard of care, other than to identify where their's ends and ours begins. That seems like something we should know. If they do not intersect, there is a problem! Also, as I mentioned, there is a contractor on-board as expert witness. I just spoke with him, and he is not aware of any specifics in the state's contractor standard of care for defining the boundary of their practice.

XR - the latter is what happened, in spades.

-Mac

 

[oldestguy]

In my experience, should this get to court, even just a judge, you have to be as simple as possible. Even make up a model and demonstrate the weakness of the repair. Be careful that is is representative, because there might be another engineer on the other side that can destroy you. I've seen some really stupid judges, but of course some good ones also.

 

[MacGruber22]

oldestguy - 99% sure this one is going to stay in arbitration. Thankfully I will not be building scale models of splice connections. I can't imagine ever doing that, though. I hope the results of our analysis of the connections will be clear enough for a layperson to see there is a large discrepancy between required/provided.

-Mac

 

[Forensic74]

Hugh? the IEBC and IRC appendix J spells out the process in which an engineer is engaged in a repair. It's technically the building official that requires an engineer to inspect and/or design the repairs. In many jurisdictions, the burden of obtaining a permit falls on the owner, not the contractor. If your owner didn't engage the BO, then the part of the blame may lay there.

If a permit was pulled and the GC allowed to proceed by the BO, I think your malpractice allegation against the GC is sunk; albeit, it sounds like he performed a negligent repair.

 

[MacGruber22]

Forsensic,

I understand where you are coming from, but the IEBC is not adopted as the existing building code for one and two family structures in this jurisdiction. IRC Appendix J is technically not even referenced in the county code (Appendix J has the subtext of "The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance.").

In this jurisdiction, the contractor is responsible for permits.

-Mac

 

[XR250]

Can you reveal how much they paid for the repair?

 

[MacGruber22]

XR250 - not sure what you mean. I will say that I do know those particulars, and they are not good - in that there was a ton of erroneous billing for material and work not performed. The reality is that they were in the wrong on many fronts, and have little to no reasonable basis to rebut. But, as usual, the claims rarely are recovered due to insufficient state funds, bankruptcy of the contractor, etc. I am just trying to be thorough.

-Mac

 

[Forensic74]

The fact that the jurisdiction has not adopted much provisions for existing buildings, i think you'll have an uphill battle trying to show that the contractor acted outside of his "legal practice" for light wood framed construction repairs. It's not like he was winging the design of a primary steel girder.

 

[MacGruber22]

I hear you loud and clear, Forensic. Thanks for your comments.

-Mac

 

[XR250]

I've worked on a number of these cases and the only one who usually wins is the Attorneys.

 

[MacGruber22]

XR - yup. Since this is a homeowner with modest means, we are doing the work only slightly above cost.

-Mac

 

[XR250]

Wow, that is gracious of your firm.
I always end up regretting pro-bono jobs and jobs for Family or Friends.

 

[MacGruber22]

Well, the law firm is a recurring client, and we have been treated exceedingly well with large commercial and condo facade litigation jobs. Subsidizing our fee from the larger jobs to help a homeowner, here and there, is the right thing to do in our opinion. We shouldn't be taken advantage of with this client. Frankly, I wish I had more time to donate my time to those in need. Unfortunately, I currently donate the extra 20 hours a week to regular projects.

Sometimes pro-bono jobs do end up with being taken advantage of. But, there aren't many days that go by without being taken advantage of by someone. I think we all are used to, and expect, getting beaten up by our professional relationships. Written contracts and verbal agreements seem to amount to very little these days. Either relationships are new & fleeting or they are constantly in jeopardy, threatened by another consultant who's fee is 5% less, with 50% less quality.



-Mac