Legal Question in Construction Law in California
Contractor responsibility for roofing defect.
We have found mold in the ceilings of our home, which is in the finish stage of construction. The contractor brushed this off as an insignificant problem, saying only that he�d �look into it.� Meanwhile, I brought in a forensic architect to give me an independent evaluation of the problem.
The expert told me that a �hazardous condition� exists and that the contractor should not have built the roof (cathedral ceilings, no attics) without allowing for ventilation! Now I�m faced with starting an expensive and destructive discovery process, and will ultimately need to repair the ceiling/roof structure. This comes at a huge expense; the condition could exist in up to 90% of our 3500 sf. house!
The contractor claims that here is nothing wrong with his construction, saying that it is �typical� and �adequate,� and accepts no responsibility whatsoever. The expert told me that it is the contractor who is ultimately responsible for building a defective roofing system. I told him that the plans did not specify ventilation, to which he replied that the contractor is still at fault.
Is this a black and white issue, as the expert suggests, or is it hopelessly gray, requiring huge legal fees with little hope for reparation?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Contractor responsibility for roofing defect.
It would seem that the liability would be with the design of the plans, unless the contractor changed them or knew he was building something inadequate or not up to local building codes.
The expert should clarify his opinion to you--is the damage the result of faulty plans or faulty construction?
Re: Contractor responsibility for roofing defect.
Your expert may need to go back to school. Although ventilation is normally required in a cathedral ceiling, there are legitimate arguments that certain systems and situations don't require ventilation. Even if you can prove that ventilation is required in this instance, if the builder built it according to plans, then he is likely off the hook (although there are exceptions, especially if he was responsible for the design.) I will say, however, that lack of ventilation in cathedral ceilings is usually a source of trouble. Building plan checkers are usually keenly aware of ventilation requirements. If ventilation was required, do you know how it managed to get past the plan checkers?
Also, the "mold" issue may or may not be a problem. This can be remarkably complex. Have you had an industrial hygienist look at the problem? What type of mold? Have there been any damages? Will the mold be contained by the drywall?
It's hard to say what should be done in this instance since I don't have all the necessary facts. But if it was my house, unless the builder could clearly show that the system was designed without need for ventilation, I would ask for a change order that provides ventilation in the cathedral ceiling.
Related Questions & Answers
-
California Twenty (20) Day Preliminary Notice Is there any recourse when you... Asked 10/09/02, 12:02 pm in United States California Construction Law
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
