Master Condo Policy

[Bertolinoins]

I have yet to see a GL policy for general contractor that does not have products and completed operations... which is triggered by a construction defect claim while not requiring an occurance beyond a failed inspection. The work was not done correctly. Who signed off on the permits and certificate of occupancy with these issues?

 

[sludgesurfer1]

Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies? /  The Builders Counsel: A Construction Law Blog from Washington Construction Lawyer & LEED AP Douglas S. Reiser

Several insurers will insure only the contingent damage caused by the construction defect, but not repair of the defect itself (ie: the missing sprinkler system)

This issue is always a legal hot point. I've been embroiled in an issue a few years ago and had thought defect was covered when in reality it wasn't.

 

[Milkman1265]

This is very interesting. I look up the co and it was signed off and issued with sprinklers. Wouldn't this mean it was up to code?

Could being up to code for satisfying the fire department different from a test they do in 5 years.

I asked the president of the condo and they said they left voice mails and email to the builder but recently the email account has been deleted.

The GC is aware of the situation because they had to show up in court to appeal for time to do this testing. It was a big complication where the GC did not take his name off the sprinkler account. Now when then condo went to the hearing to pay for time. They said oh the named respondant already showed up 2 hrs earlier.

So he is aware of the situation but is not reachable

 

[sludgesurfer1]

Your attorney will probably be experienced with these tactics that the developer is taking. Hopefully they have a strategy in mind to track the guy down and have him served papers. The developer probably formed an LLC so the attorney is going to try to find a way to "pierce the corporate veil" of protection offered by the LLC and sue the dude personally. Plus, if the city inspector signed off in the past on the project, would not the City have some liability as well? Your attorney might know. Hard to move forward without paying some $$$ at this point.

 

[Milkman1265]

btw, i talked to the condo president and they took out the blueprints for the condo, for some reason the fire sprinkler blue prints are missing.

its on the outline page tho but the page isnt there.

sounds suspicious.

 

[sludgesurfer1]

btw, i talked to the condo president and they took out the blueprints for the condo, for some reason the fire sprinkler blue prints are missing.

its on the outline page tho but the page isnt there.

sounds suspicious.

City building inspector is covering his own "rear"?

 

[Milkman1265]

Yeah, this case is one huge mess. Everyone is questioning if it passed the inspection for the CO, why are they having the problem with the sprinkler now.

I'm only helping on the side lines, for researching and learning (self interest) but this is a real interesting case. There are so many coincidence, but who knows.

They have a sprinkler company coming out to do a pretest to trace and find all the necessary items or quote.

NY has a 6 year construction defect, i dont know if this will fall under it if it is not up to code. But their 6th year is coming up in a few months. Interested to see how this play out.

 

[Accelerated]

Surely there is a copy of the GC's GL policy on file. Just file the claim against the GC's policy and let them (the carrier) deal with any subrogation against the sprinkler sub-contractor and/or the code inspector. Even if the GC is out of business, coverage was probably in place when everything was done (*should have been in place.. NY is notorious for shady GC's and Inspectors.. I actually had someone try to bill for the "required" bribe to the city officials during the Sandy debacle).

That said, if it was up to code when it was installed, and there was not actual physical loss to the building, just a failure of a hydro test and the realization that it is not up to current code (which is all I have seen about it in this thread), then it will be a different ball game altogether.

 

[Milkman1265]

Surely there is a copy of the GC's GL policy on file. Just file the claim against the GC's policy and let them (the carrier) deal with any subrogation against the sprinkler sub-contractor and/or the code inspector. Even if the GC is out of business, coverage was probably in place when everything was done (*should have been in place.. NY is notorious for shady GC's and Inspectors.. I actually had someone try to bill for the "required" bribe to the city officials during the Sandy debacle).

That said, if it was up to code when it was installed, and there was not actual physical loss to the building, just a failure of a hydro test and the realization that it is not up to current code (which is all I have seen about it in this thread), then it will be a different ball game altogether.

I spoke to the FDNY inspector myself, and he said that it was missing a lot of the necessary items a sprinkler system should have, he didn't say if it was up to code or not. The sprinkler company said that it looks like it was built by a plumber and not a sprinkler company, and it's not going to pass. (because of missing safety items, like ball drip, shut off valves, drain valves, the up to code requirements etc...)

They do not have a GC GL policy on file, we've been looking but seems like the GC gave bare min. documents over.

 

[djs]

Check with the state licensing board. They probably have his bond on file, if not the insurance policy as well. If needed, file a claim against the bonding company. That will make everything surface pretty quickly.

Bonding companies are notoriously good at making things happen so they don't pay out a claim like this.

Dan