THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM
IN PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS
Gregory A. Robinson, P.E.

In the majority of property claims the cause of damage is readily apparent to the adjuster in the field. The insured files a claim, the adjuster examines the damage and resolves the claim. In some cases, though, the cause of the damage may not be apparent to even the most experienced adjuster or the cause may be the subject of dispute. The insured may feel that his damage was caused by one or more covered perils. This impression may arise from an the opinion given by an eager repair contractor or from the insured's own diagnosis. It is when the cause or causes are in dispute or are not known that professionals of various types are called upon to evaluate the situation and render an opinion to help settle the claim.

Frequently the professional is called upon to simply render a "yes" or "no" opinion. That is, he or she must answer only the question: "did or did not a certain peril cause the damage in question?" In those cases where the answer is "no" the next question that should be answered is "what really happened here?" Simply saying "no" without explaining why will generally not satisfy the insured. The following case studies briefly describe various claims of damage to residential structures where the cause of damage was not readily apparent to the adjuster, and where the final answer to the question: "what really happened here?" had to be determined to satisfy the insured or claimant.

BLASTING DAMAGE CLAIM

The first case study involves a claim of blasting damage to a residential structure. The house was approximately 25 years old located in a mountainous region of North Carolina. A new highway was under construction near the house and a significant amount of blasting was required to remove rock from the right-of-way. The insured filed a claim containing several sketches and a detailed list describing 54 individual damage items allegedly caused by the blasting. The list included exterior damage such as cracked brick veneer, loose window glass and glazing compound, cracks and loose flagstones in a sidewalk, and warped wood trim. Interior items included cracks and nail pops in gypsum board walls, loose door casing and molding, and cracks in the grout in the bathroom tile.

Review of the blasting records indicated that the house was far enough away from the blasting to have sustained no damage due to ground vibrations. Examination of four nearby residences did not reveal any damage caused by blasting. One of these houses was only a few hundred yards from a location of significant blasting. At the request of the client, however, I proceeded to establish a most probable cause for each of the items enumerated by the insured. My report consisted of a one-for-one response to each of the "punchlist" items, all of which were determined to be the result of either lack of maintenance or of settlement of a typical 25 year-old residential structure.

• All of the cracks in the brick veneer were settlement cracks. There was an accumulation of debris in the cracks which indicated that the cracks were fairly old, pre-dating the blasting.
  
• The cracks and loose paving stones in the sidewalk were caused by periodic freezing of the ground. This resulted in small movements of the sidewalk stones relative to each other. The resulting cracks were not repaired and the deterioration accelerated.
  
• The loose window glass and glazing compound was the result of aging and weathering. The glass was held in place in the wood window frames by an oil-based putty applied to the inside of the window frames. During the winter months moisture condensed on the colder glass surfaces and dripped down to the bottom of the window panes. Repeated wetting and drying over the life of the house caused the putty to age and the oils evaporated out. As the putty became more brittle and shrank it drew away from the window frames and the glass became loose.

Note that these last two items were related to maintenance which could have been attended to by the homeowner.

Similarly, the interior items were related to maintenance and settlement.

• The majority of the cracks were the result of the settlement of the foundations which also caused the brick veneer to crack.
  
• There was standing water in the crawlspace. The changes in moisture content brought about by the presence of this water would be sufficient to cause shrinkage and swelling of the wood framing members supporting the floors and walls. This would, of course, cause cracking in the drywall finishes in the living spaces above. This movement would also have caused trim boards and door casings to shift. Dramatic changes in the moisture content of the soil under the foundation would result in small movements and cause futher distress to the interior finishes.
  
• Finally, the floor framing was not stiff enough the prevent the floors from sagging. This resulted in movements and cracking of walls and the tile and the bathroom.

CLAIM OF UPLIFT FROM WIND LOADS

The next case is one in which a contractor told the insured homeowner that strong winds had lifted his house from its foundation and deposited it back just slightly out of its original position. The evidence cited was several brick piers which had shifted relative to the supporting structure of the house. At the time of my field observations the house was 30 years old and appeared to be in good condition.

Analysis of the affect of the possible wind loads revealed that it was not possible for the wind to lift the house from the foundation as claimed. This analysis further revealed that the roof joists would have been pulled off of the walls before the house would have moved from its foundation. I saw no such damage during my observations of the attic and roof framing.The foundation consisted of brick piers at regular intervals. These piers rested on footings of stones bonded together with mortar with less than 12 inches of soil cover. A brick curtain wall had been added between the piers at some later date. (See Figure 1)

 

Figure 1. Masonry foundation piers with masonry curtainwall

Detailed observations revealed that the floor and wall framing actually rested on the top of the curtainwall and not on the original piers. My conclusion was, therefore, that the original footings had settled and the house came to rest on the curtainwalls. With the passage of time the stone footings shifted, causing the piers to settle further. Since the tops of the piers were not restrained they were able to move relative to the house.I later had the opportunity to observe a house that sustained severe wind damage from a tornado which passed by at a distance of less than 100 yards. In this case the entire roof was lifted from the house and deposited upside-down on the ground nearby. I checked the floor framing to see if it had shifted during the storm. My observations revealed that even under these extreme wind loads the house did not shift on its foundation.

CLAIM OF DAMAGE TO BRICK VENEER DUE TO WIND LOADS

Hurricanes Bertha and Fran resulted in an large number of claims. After the storm, for the first time in years, homeowners took the time to look around at their property. Some homeowners saw cracks that, as far as they were concerned, had appeared since the storm and had therefore been caused by the high winds. This next case deals with cracks in the brick veneer of a small, well-cared for house which experienced both hurricanes. When I observed the cracks they were essentially horizontal and originated at two window heads at an end wall. (See Figure 2.) The interior structure of the house was such that this particular wall could not have deflected sufficiently to cause these cracks. Close observation revealed that the brick over each window opening was supported by a steel plate lintel. These lintels had corroded to the point that the steel had begun to separate into layers and expand. My research indicated that iron oxide, the corrosion product in rusted steel, occupies approximately 6 times the volume of iron. The corrosion and resulting expansion of the ends of these steel lintel plates initiated small cracks at the weakest point in the wall, the window heads. As the corrosion proceeded, the expansion proceeded, opening the cracks in the brick veneer wider.

Figure 2. Steel lintels over openings in brick veneer wall.

CLAIM OF DAMAGE TO BRICK VENEER DUE TO LIGHTNING STRIKE

This case is very similar to the preceding case in that it also involved a horizontal crack in brick veneer. The insured in this case claimed that lightning struck a tree in the front yard of his house, traveled along a buried water line and struck the house, producing a crack extending horizontally all the way around the perimeter of the foundation wall. The house in question was approximately 30 years old and was covered with brick veneer. It appeared to be in generally good condition. I observed extensive minor settlement cracking of the brick veneer on all of the walls. This did not explain the presence of the horizontal crack. Upon closer examination I observed that this crack ran along the top of the crawlspace vents. When I looked at the wall from the crawlspace I saw that steel lintel plates had been installed over the vents and that all of these plates were heavily corroded. This corrosion had caused the plates to expand and crack the brick veneer similar to the previous case.

CLAIM OF DAMAGE TO FLOOR FRAMING DUE TO WORK DONE BY TELEPHONE COMPANY EMPLOYEES

In this case a telephone company technician drilled a hole in the floor of an existing house to run a telephone line. The house was about 15 years old and was in good condition. The technician was unfortunate enough to drill completely through the end of a floor joist. When informed of this incident, the owner filed a claim against the telephone company for damages to his house. In his claim he stated that the floor of the room in which the hole had been drilled was sagging. (See Figure 3.) He attributed this sagging to the hole drilled at the end of one single floor joist. While pursuing his claim the owner attempted various elaborate repairs to shore up the floor. The owner's claim eventually included the cost of these repairs. After almost a year of negotiations with the owner, the telephone company called upon me to establish the cause of the claimed damage.

Figure 3. Soft or rotted floor framing.

During my conversations with the insured I discovered two interesting facts. The first was that he had contracted to have almost 20 large pine trees removed from his property within the past 12 months. The second was that the house had no gutters until just prior to the technician's work. My observations revealed that the bottoms of the floor joists were soft but not rotted. I also observed that there was an insufficient amount of crawlspace ventilation. From a theoretical point of view I knew that a small hole drilled through the end of a single floor joist could not cause the entire floor system to sag as claimed. The task now became one of establishing the actual cause of the deflection of the floor.

During my investigation I established that the floor framing was weak and had probably been sagging for a fairly long time. The reason for this sagging was the fact that the floor framing, up until recently, was in a constant atmosphere of high humidity. This state of high humidity was due to the fact that there were no gutters to prevent water from accumulating on the ground around the house. The pine trees, only recently cut down, effectively prevented the ground from drying and the accumulated ground water migrated to the crawlspace. Once inside the crawlspace this groundwater produced excessive humidity which could not be dissipated by the inadequate crawlspace ventilation. Water vapor condensed on the surfaces of the floor joists, causing degradation of the wood. As the wood degraded it sagged.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

A common thread through all of these cases is that the damage claimed by the insured was almost always due to lack of maintenance. In many cases homeowners either don't observe, or don't deal with problems when they first appear and the solutions are the least expensive. Just because a homeowner only notices some property damage after a storm or some other significant occurrence doesn't mean that the damage wasn't there before the occurrence. A thorough investigation by a qualified professional should answer the question "What really happened here?"

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Greg Robinson received a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree from North Carolina State University in 1981 and a Master of Civil Engineering degree from North Carolina State University in 1983. Since receiving these degrees he has practiced engineering with several prominent Raleigh engineering firms until 1991 when he started his own engineering consulting firm. Greg also has 21years of active and reserve service in the U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Corps. He is a registered professional engineer in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

Since starting his own consulting firm, Greg has conducted numerous forensic investigations involving various types of property damage claims to residential and commercial structures. As a FORCON consultant for the past four years, Greg has been extensively involved in claims associated with EIFS problems, as well as claims generated by Hurricanes Bertha and Fran.As the next article indicates, Greg is also now the manager of FORCON's new Raleigh office.