I had been contacted by a very good developer of condominiums and a great person to help him out of a lawsuit over a condo he built that had leaked.
When he called me, he was already tangled up with "expert" forensic construction defect investigators. (Nice TITLES eh?
Just a note here that the one who can get results that fit the definitions I give on the "definitions and education" page of this website are the authority! NOT TITLES! or even time in the industry for that matter. Remember that. It applies in all fields. Titles do not guarantee results; thus- think for yourself and ask questions, evaluate the data and LOOK don't listen as it relates to results promised and delivered or not. Not even "decades of experience" etc. etc. are necessarily valid. Results! did you get them or not. You can have someone with 1 month of experience get results so not even time in the area is a valid measure. Results. Yes or No. That is the bottom line in the final analysis. Not labels, unless of course they fit the definition in truth. But the results or lack of them will tell you that.
Anyway, These title happy individuals were tearing apart a very beautiful condo to "find defects" at the behest (a persons orders or command) of the condo owner and her attorney even though there were no signs of leakage in the areas they were so enthusiastically tearing apart!
They had all sorts of theories- moisture vapor was at 6% on the concrete (which up to 12% is acceptable in that circumstance per ASTM standards in building), no weep screed between the 1st and 2nd story (which is not needed) etc. etc.
I found this out, documented the arbitraries and called the "forensic" guy out on it.
I also found the actual factual leak source allowing water into their condo which was simply a door install.
This guy had 1' of drywall removed around the entire inside of the 3,500 square foot condo!! The destructive "testing" cost the poor developer 5-10K and all this guy came up with was what I stated above- opinions, arbitraries and erroneous diagnosis!!
Well, needless to say, I eloquently presented facts of specific leak sources, debunked his opinions and arbitraries with facts and the definition of standard as it regards water proofing in such a way as to be impossible to weasel out of his flawed assessment of and destruction of a brand new condo.
The result was a fired "expert" forensic construction defect investigator, lawsuit dropped and the leak sources I found terminated and no leaks since!
Incidently, after eloquently presenting the facts with no bias etc., the home owner who hired this guy saw the fraud of the "expert and was the one who fired him.
Oh! you know what his defense was when presented with the fact that his opinions were not valid per the FACTS ascertained? "It is true because I say so because I have 35 years experience"!
Boy, there is arrogance in the face of irrefutable facts and he still defended his lousy arbitrary destructive opinion with: "It is true because I say so because I have 35 years experience and I am an expert!
I invite you to review the "just a note... paragraph above.
No results- You're Fired!
I often resolve disputes before they get into lawsuits which I personally prefer. It has been my pleasure to run into many fine contractors and developers who I have helped in this regard because they are individuals of honor and want to do good and stand behind their work so there is no need to use force when reason is present or can be developed.
When he called me, he was already tangled up with "expert" forensic construction defect investigators. (Nice TITLES eh?
Just a note here that the one who can get results that fit the definitions I give on the "definitions and education" page of this website are the authority! NOT TITLES! or even time in the industry for that matter. Remember that. It applies in all fields. Titles do not guarantee results; thus- think for yourself and ask questions, evaluate the data and LOOK don't listen as it relates to results promised and delivered or not. Not even "decades of experience" etc. etc. are necessarily valid. Results! did you get them or not. You can have someone with 1 month of experience get results so not even time in the area is a valid measure. Results. Yes or No. That is the bottom line in the final analysis. Not labels, unless of course they fit the definition in truth. But the results or lack of them will tell you that.
Anyway, These title happy individuals were tearing apart a very beautiful condo to "find defects" at the behest (a persons orders or command) of the condo owner and her attorney even though there were no signs of leakage in the areas they were so enthusiastically tearing apart!
They had all sorts of theories- moisture vapor was at 6% on the concrete (which up to 12% is acceptable in that circumstance per ASTM standards in building), no weep screed between the 1st and 2nd story (which is not needed) etc. etc.
I found this out, documented the arbitraries and called the "forensic" guy out on it.
I also found the actual factual leak source allowing water into their condo which was simply a door install.
This guy had 1' of drywall removed around the entire inside of the 3,500 square foot condo!! The destructive "testing" cost the poor developer 5-10K and all this guy came up with was what I stated above- opinions, arbitraries and erroneous diagnosis!!
Well, needless to say, I eloquently presented facts of specific leak sources, debunked his opinions and arbitraries with facts and the definition of standard as it regards water proofing in such a way as to be impossible to weasel out of his flawed assessment of and destruction of a brand new condo.
The result was a fired "expert" forensic construction defect investigator, lawsuit dropped and the leak sources I found terminated and no leaks since!
Incidently, after eloquently presenting the facts with no bias etc., the home owner who hired this guy saw the fraud of the "expert and was the one who fired him.
Oh! you know what his defense was when presented with the fact that his opinions were not valid per the FACTS ascertained? "It is true because I say so because I have 35 years experience"!
Boy, there is arrogance in the face of irrefutable facts and he still defended his lousy arbitrary destructive opinion with: "It is true because I say so because I have 35 years experience and I am an expert!
I invite you to review the "just a note... paragraph above.
No results- You're Fired!
I often resolve disputes before they get into lawsuits which I personally prefer. It has been my pleasure to run into many fine contractors and developers who I have helped in this regard because they are individuals of honor and want to do good and stand behind their work so there is no need to use force when reason is present or can be developed.
RSS Feed
