Yep, you read it right, a free download of the 189 page Residential Inspectors Guide based on the 2006 International Residential Code is available by clicking the headline to go to the ICC website.
I downloaded mine today, get one before the offer is gone!
The experts on pedestrian traffic coatings brings you the information you need on one website! We have information on all pedestrian traffic coatings manufacturer's, including Pli-Dek, West Coast Specialty Coating Systems, Desert Brand, Life Deck, Tufflex, Mer-Kote and Dex-O-Tex systems. Browse our website for articles, videos, news stories and more. We'll be updating and adding more pages soon so bookmark this site and come back and visit!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Whew, All Posts are now Labeled!
As a newbie to blogging, I never labeled a lot of my posts. Well I went back through and have labeled nearly every post with a key word or two to help you find subject matter of interest.
For instance, any articles I've read and recommend will now be labeled "Recommended Reading" and may be labeled under "education" as well. Specific manufacturer's are all keyworded and as you'll see in the labels column, there's many a key word to search with.
Happy reading
For instance, any articles I've read and recommend will now be labeled "Recommended Reading" and may be labeled under "education" as well. Specific manufacturer's are all keyworded and as you'll see in the labels column, there's many a key word to search with.
Happy reading
Monday, May 12, 2008
Gotta watch the Gutter Guy
So after seeing my third job damaged by gutter installers who hacked up our flashing, cracked our deck coating and caused the owners to get hit with a change order to repair our work, it's time to send out a caution to everyone to watch out for the gutter guy...
First job it happened on was in Marina Del Rey, our copper flashings and deckc oatings were done, everything is nice and then I get a phone call that the new deck is cracked at multiple places...a ride on over, climb the 60' ladder to the roof top decks and we find the gutters have been forced into position, causing damage.
Our extra work order at this job cost the gutter guy a charge back of $9,800.00 against his bill. More than all his work combined...
A job we are doing in San Luis Obispo just cost the gutter guy $1,100 for us to remove and replace 40 feet of flashing.
Luckily in these 3 cases I caught the problem in time, before it became a leak and a court case. I wonder how many more are out there?
Maybe California and the US needs a "Weathertight Homes Tribunal" like they have in NZ
In New Zealand, condo's, or apartments as they call them down under, have a Ministry of Justice Weathertight Homes Tribunal they can turn to for help in leaky building problems.
Read this article on a long drawn out case over leaky decks and buildings...
Read this article on a long drawn out case over leaky decks and buildings...
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Interesting Arbitration in Oregon and another reason why all contracts need to be in writing
Here's an interesting case that was arbitrated up in Oregon, but should serve as a lesson learned for all of us to establish a written contract, a scope of work and a written warranty that combined with proper construction techniques, will hopefully allow you to avoid a huge headache on a million dollar home being built. Click the headline to go to the webpage where the whole dcument is to read it all...
Sometime in February 2004, the parties entered into a verbal contract. Neither party recalls the exact date of the contract or the specific terms of their agreement. When presented with a verbal contract, it is not possible; without a detailed, accurate presentation of the contractual agreement; for a fact finder to fully and accurately determine the specifics of the parties’ promises; their performance; and the extent of their compliance or breach, which ever the case may be. The only provisions of the verbal contract for which the parties provided credible evidence were that the claimant agreed to provide a waterproof membrane on a deck and that in return the respondent agreed to pay $980. The evidence in the record supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant provided a waterproof membrane on a deck and that the respondent paid the claimant in full. Neither party breached the only contract provision that the parties were capable of recalling with credibility.
IMPROPER WORK
The claimant contracted with the respondent to have a waterproof membrane installed on a deck. The claimant explained to the respondent that the deck area would eventually be covered with concrete. The respondent informed the claimant that the waterproof membranes he installed were designed to be open and exposed to the elements as roofing material for flat or low-sloping roofs; he had no experience, prior to working with the claimant, installing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. The claimant told the respondent to, “Do whatever it is you do.” The claimant also told the respondent in the same conversation, “not to worry because concrete does not leak.” After a leak was discovered and both parties investigated, they learned that, in cases where concrete is going to cover a waterproof membrane, industry standards require that the membrane itself curve up or “flash” the vertical wall for a distance of at least eight inches. In this case, it did not. In addition, they learned that industry standards require that a protective layer or “protection board” separate the waterproof membrane and the concrete. In this case, it did not. Neither was aware of these requirements prior to the work being performed, nor did the claimant require that the respondent adhere to those standards at the time of performance. Yet the claimant contends that the respondent should be solely responsible for improper work. The claimant’s contention is in error. The claimant directed the respondent to “do what it does” to install a waterproof membrane. The respondent did exactly that. The claimant did not ask or direct the respondent to investigate the procedure for placing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. In fact, the claimant implied by its statement—don’t worry, concrete doesn’t leak—that it did not require the respondent to do anything other than that which it regularly did when installing waterproof membranes on a roof.
The claimant served as the general contractor for the residence constructed at 1949 Cheryl Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The claimant visited the site daily. As of the date of the hearing, the claimant had been working in the Lake Oswego area as a general contractor for over 36 years. The house the claimant constructed is valued at over $1,000,000. Taking all of these factors in consideration, the claimant knew, or should have known, that it was ultimately responsible for quality and workmanship. Nevertheless, the claimant inspected the respondent’s work and made payment-in-full without ever mentioning improper work. What’s more, the respondent’s work was open for inspection and viewing by the claimant for a period in excess of four months. During that time, the claimant did not raise the issue of improper work. Without any indication that the respondent’s work was improper, the claimant directed another subcontractor to pour concrete over the respondent’s work, making any necessary repairs to the respondent’s work exponentially more difficult and costly. Therefore, the claimant alone bears the responsibility for the high cost to make repairs.
The claimant contracted with a concrete subcontractor to pour a slab of concrete over the respondent’s waterproof membrane. The waterproof membrane was flashed to a height of no more than three inches. The subcontractor poured a 4.5 inch slab. Industry standards require that concrete pours not exceed the height of any flashing. The concrete contractor’s work was improper. What’s more, it is highly likely that the fact that the concrete rose above the flashing contributed, if not caused, the leak at issue.
Finally, during the period between the installation of the waterproof membrane and the discovery of a leak, several intervening events took place, any of which could have either caused or contributed to the leak. Construction workers walked and performed construction work directly on the waterproof membrane, concrete was poured directly on top of the membrane without the benefit of a protective barrier, and the claimant removed and replaced a post that had been flashed by the respondent. The claimant’s evidence did not eliminate any of the above factors as the cause of the leak. Similarly, the claimant failed to establish that the respondent’s work was either the sole or a significant cause of the leak. Rather, the claimant proved only that the respondent’s work was one of several possible causes of the leak.
Read it all, click the headline!
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Sometime in February 2004, the parties entered into a verbal contract. Neither party recalls the exact date of the contract or the specific terms of their agreement. When presented with a verbal contract, it is not possible; without a detailed, accurate presentation of the contractual agreement; for a fact finder to fully and accurately determine the specifics of the parties’ promises; their performance; and the extent of their compliance or breach, which ever the case may be. The only provisions of the verbal contract for which the parties provided credible evidence were that the claimant agreed to provide a waterproof membrane on a deck and that in return the respondent agreed to pay $980. The evidence in the record supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant provided a waterproof membrane on a deck and that the respondent paid the claimant in full. Neither party breached the only contract provision that the parties were capable of recalling with credibility.
IMPROPER WORK
The claimant contracted with the respondent to have a waterproof membrane installed on a deck. The claimant explained to the respondent that the deck area would eventually be covered with concrete. The respondent informed the claimant that the waterproof membranes he installed were designed to be open and exposed to the elements as roofing material for flat or low-sloping roofs; he had no experience, prior to working with the claimant, installing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. The claimant told the respondent to, “Do whatever it is you do.” The claimant also told the respondent in the same conversation, “not to worry because concrete does not leak.” After a leak was discovered and both parties investigated, they learned that, in cases where concrete is going to cover a waterproof membrane, industry standards require that the membrane itself curve up or “flash” the vertical wall for a distance of at least eight inches. In this case, it did not. In addition, they learned that industry standards require that a protective layer or “protection board” separate the waterproof membrane and the concrete. In this case, it did not. Neither was aware of these requirements prior to the work being performed, nor did the claimant require that the respondent adhere to those standards at the time of performance. Yet the claimant contends that the respondent should be solely responsible for improper work. The claimant’s contention is in error. The claimant directed the respondent to “do what it does” to install a waterproof membrane. The respondent did exactly that. The claimant did not ask or direct the respondent to investigate the procedure for placing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. In fact, the claimant implied by its statement—don’t worry, concrete doesn’t leak—that it did not require the respondent to do anything other than that which it regularly did when installing waterproof membranes on a roof.
The claimant served as the general contractor for the residence constructed at 1949 Cheryl Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The claimant visited the site daily. As of the date of the hearing, the claimant had been working in the Lake Oswego area as a general contractor for over 36 years. The house the claimant constructed is valued at over $1,000,000. Taking all of these factors in consideration, the claimant knew, or should have known, that it was ultimately responsible for quality and workmanship. Nevertheless, the claimant inspected the respondent’s work and made payment-in-full without ever mentioning improper work. What’s more, the respondent’s work was open for inspection and viewing by the claimant for a period in excess of four months. During that time, the claimant did not raise the issue of improper work. Without any indication that the respondent’s work was improper, the claimant directed another subcontractor to pour concrete over the respondent’s work, making any necessary repairs to the respondent’s work exponentially more difficult and costly. Therefore, the claimant alone bears the responsibility for the high cost to make repairs.
The claimant contracted with a concrete subcontractor to pour a slab of concrete over the respondent’s waterproof membrane. The waterproof membrane was flashed to a height of no more than three inches. The subcontractor poured a 4.5 inch slab. Industry standards require that concrete pours not exceed the height of any flashing. The concrete contractor’s work was improper. What’s more, it is highly likely that the fact that the concrete rose above the flashing contributed, if not caused, the leak at issue.
Finally, during the period between the installation of the waterproof membrane and the discovery of a leak, several intervening events took place, any of which could have either caused or contributed to the leak. Construction workers walked and performed construction work directly on the waterproof membrane, concrete was poured directly on top of the membrane without the benefit of a protective barrier, and the claimant removed and replaced a post that had been flashed by the respondent. The claimant’s evidence did not eliminate any of the above factors as the cause of the leak. Similarly, the claimant failed to establish that the respondent’s work was either the sole or a significant cause of the leak. Rather, the claimant proved only that the respondent’s work was one of several possible causes of the leak.
Read it all, click the headline!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Anothe example of why metal lath decks need fiberglass over the lath
Still on memory lane row, I found these pictures of a deck in Ventura with an ocean front exposure (at about 200' above sea level, but not fog level)that are of a metal lath coating, brand unknown, with a rusted out lath. This deck system has no waterproofing apparent, no fiberglass, no seal guard, nothing, just relying on slope to run water off before it could percolate down...it didn't work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)