Forensic Investigations of Construction Defect Claims
Damage to a New Visual Screen at an Airport in Michigan
Mr. Bernhardt was retained to evaluate the damage to cracked welds in an exterior structural steel tube sign structure. The structure had been damaged within two years of construction. Mr. Bernhardt evaluated the welds and tube components and, after analysis and research, determined that the welds had cracked because of a build-up of pressure inside the tube from freezing water. An error in the shop drawings had created an unintentional point of access for water to intrude on the inside of the tube. Also, properly sized weep holes were not provided. Mr. Bernhardt prepared a report in collaboration with a metallurgist and testified to the results in a deposition.
Water Intrusion Through Windows of Townhomes
A contractor brought claims against a window supplier in the construction of a mixed-use building that included townhomes. Mr. Bernhardt evaluated the construction documents, photographs of the construction, and testing by other engineers. Mr. Bernhardt found that the construction drawings had deficient details for the window flashing as compared to the requirements of the applicable standards. Mr. Bernhardt opined the failure of the windows was not due to the manufacture of the windows, but due to deficient details in the construction drawings, and deficient installation by the contractor.
Water Intrusion of Commercial Build-out
A strip mall tenant was having modifications made to the HVAC system which required penetrations through the single-ply roof membrane. The mechanical sub-contractor scheduled the penetrations with the general contractor (GC), while the roofing sub-contractor forecasted to the GC that they could not get there the day the penetrations were made. However, this scheduling issue was unbeknownst to the mechanical subcontractor. Overnight it rained and flooded an adjacent tenant’s store. Mr. Bernhardt opined that the GC had control of the schedule and either should have ensured the roofer was there the day of the penetrations or delayed the mechanical subcontractor.
Construction Defect Claim for Underpinned Walls
A homeowner claimed that damage ensued after foundation piers were installed to support a portion of his single-story home. Mr. Bernhardt inspected the foundation in the crawl space, surveyed the elevation of the floors, inspected walls for cracks, and prepared a report. He opined that some of the cracks in the drywall and brick veneer were from the pier construction.
Construction Defect Claim for Underpinned Basement Walls of Single-Story Home
Upon inspection of the basement walls, Mr. Bernhardt determined that some of the cracks were likely present before the pier construction. Others were due to the pier construction. Mr. Bernhardt surveyed the first floor and basement and photographed the walls and claimed deficiencies. He also reviewed a report by another engineer and provide comments rebutting the other engineer’s arguments.
