If they bought it as an existing home, and didn't pay for an inspection before buying (some people don't believe it or not) then it is their own fault.
@@idaslapter5987 😆😂🤣 You seriously think a person/couple would be dumb enough buy a house without a safety inspector approval by a loan officer. Yes, I do agree with you that It is the architecture's fault for failing to see housing construction projects to meet the standard criteria and land safety development on base of the house is build on.
@@FTNS743 That is not how it works. Inspections are optional to the buyer. AND it doesn't mean a inspector would have even caught this as there was no issue until after 7 years of ownership. And structural engineers are not brought in unless an inspector see something to alert them of an issue. This is a builder issue if still under 10 warranty and if that has passed it will be their issue to deal with financially. Structural issues can happen even if a home is built to code. Grounds shift, concrete cracks. Water intrusions can happen and cause issues. So much can happen and this is why it is the home owners responsibility to maintain and keep an eye out for any issues. During this crazy market so may buyers forgo inspections just to get into a home. It is never advisable but, if you want to get a house this can be something you skip to get your offer accepted by the seller. It's a crazy time in real estate.
It could sit on the beam, but has to be figured in to the loads, and possibly the floor joists would need to be bulked up for it. Clearly the fireplace, and the stone columns, weren't.
why is the repair cost 100K? can't u just install some support beams in the basement (garage) and be done? that seems off considering you could have a foundation shored up with piers for 100K (and I would think that would be a lot more work than fixing this issue).
@@wasatchm It sounds as those they did a "paste job" to keep it from falling down, but it may even be that the house on the lower level has been pushed down into the foundation and "sank", as you noticed this is built out in the desert, so I wonder how solid the land was with that much weight from the stone fireplace and concrete beams on the 2nd floor. It did say this took 7 years to get this way. I wondered if they will need to deal with the base foundation.
Never thought I'd say this -- but I've gotta side with the insurance company on this one. One minute in, I could see where this was going, and thought to myself, "No way their insurance will pay for a collapse that hasn't happened". Since the fundamental problem is due to faulty design, I'm surprised they didn't sue the architect and code inspector!
Same with a tree overhanging a house - it doesn't matter how dangerous the tree is the insurance company has no interest in paying to prune or remove the tree.
I wonder if there’s a statute of limitations for situations like this and that’s why they didn’t mention a lawsuit? I live in Texas so I have no idea what the laws are like in Arizona.
@@TexasLadyS Arizona AND Texas are both @freedom fry states. I'm doubting either state even HAS Code, an architect, or licensed builders you can find with assets yhou can sue over.
The house was either built wrong or they renovated it with more weight on top without additional structural support. Either way, their remedy lies with the builder/architect who approved the design.
@@charleswalter2902 The builder is absolutely at fault. THIS is why builders and any contractor for that matter is required to carry General Liability Insurance. But the builder has an obligation to provide a warranty for his product. The OP isn't wrong about the architect or even code enforcement for signing off on this without adequate structural support.
kchicker: Unless it was an add on after the fact. Also done without an approved building permit. People do these things. I've been in the structural inspection biz and have been on a few of them. Call in an unlicensed contractor, have it built, (fireplace/columns) and then when problems arise try to fix the blame on someone else because you can't go after the unlicensed contractor that's across the border counting his money! Did you stop and think why they didn't go after the builder after they had an engineer give them the results? That's the first thing that entered my mind. Now they still aren't. Probably lawyers advice.
Sometimes the fireplace has cosmetic changes done to it after the fact. The customer might have wanted heavier stone instead of veneer around it, and instead of being 5' high, now they want the heavy stone to go up to the ceiling. This is pretty common and the structure is not considered.
@@levthelion As a former Union carpenter on custom home builds, we always ran changes past the owners rep and changed the plans with detailed "as built" drawing and materials lists. This allowed the Architect to voice concerns and gave the Engineer the specific materials used in the change.
At 1:36, the engineer said, "The support beam over the garage is simply too small and is now weakening under the pressure of the home." The team (contractor, architect, engineer and builder) who build the house is responsible, not the insurance company. If the house actually collapse, then the insurance company will pay up and the insurance company will go after contractor, etc.
Someone blew it. If the building is built as designed, the builder is off the hook. If the builder cut corners and put in a weaker beam than the architect and engineer specced, it's on the builder. And in all cases, the building inspector should have caught a heavy load on a wooden beam. Yet, probably is immune unless they took a payoff that can be proved.
There should have been a block wall built under the beam during initial construction and that block wall should be steel re-enforced and grouted with concrete or steel posts should be placed there and one post connected to the other so on. However the insurance companies do not want to give out money, they are a sham!
" If the house actually collapse, then the insurance company will pay up" Not at this point. The insurance policy clearly refers to a "sudden and unexpected" event. Now that the issue has been found, a collapse will not be covered. And the prior claims will prove it.
All of these things would have been pointed out by a home inspector, which they obviously didn't use when they placed their bid for the home. Yet, they appear wealthy enough to afford paying for one. They sound like very entitled people. They'll lose any civil case they'll file on this matter, and are likely to be countersued to pay for the legal costs of all other parties. When a home is poorly built, it doesn't take 7 years to finally notice it. In a liberal state, they MIGHT have a case. But not here.
@@bobmazzi7435 They obviously didn't hire an inspector. Any inspector would have noticed at least one of these major construction issues. So, everyone is off the hook, except for the home owners. Make stupid choices, win stupid prizes.
It's kind of a bummer that with all the good you could guys could do helping people deal with injustices you dedicate your time to helping a rich couple with a home repair they can clearly afford.
I can't believe they didn't even mention the people actually responsible. The builder, designer, architect, what have you. It was sort of weird that they just wanted to turn it into a hit piece on the insurance companies.
They owned the house over 5 years I.E. they alone are responsible......builders most likely did have a beam or two thier...5 years of ownership they had plenty of time to remove some and try an insurance scam....p.s. no collapse no collapse insurance RETARDS ARE PREVENTING THE INSURANCE TO KICK IN
Likely a blend of incompetence, idiocy, and corruption. Just goes to show how easy it is for this to happen. I wonder if the previous owners knew about this issue and that’s why they sold this house to the current owners.
The home wasn't built for them. It was already built when they viewed it. Like she said, she fell in love with the views. So, nothing else mattered. When you use a seller's home inspection, it's still Buyer Beware. Buyers should always use their own home inspector. It looks like the couple is on the hook for their repairs.
Like how you added that one minor detail at the end: "one thing I forgot to mention..." How many tons does that stone fireplace and chimney weigh? And it's not sitting on it's own foundation and footers? The focus of your story is completely wrong. How could anyone expect an insurance company to cover such a huge blunder in the construction?
@@WHSmith-zk2ox Whatever the details, masonry should not be supported by wood structure. It's a common code requirement--it could be based on engineering fact---IDK.
@@pcatful So you say........ What is coded as engineering fact today was fiction yesterday...... Those pesky codes.... What the world needs today is more code breakers that know what they are talking about.... Or so it would seem...... I think those kinds of people are called Mavericks, or engineers, or inventors.... Imagine that...
How about you find the BUILDER? Who built that home who authorized those weak beams? SOMEONE IS AT FAULT and it's not the owner....this is on the BUILDER.
When was the chimney installed? After framing inspection. Wonder if they are not going after the builder ( not even mentioned) is because the chimney was installed after the house got it certificate of occupancy.
I’m not a builder, just an observer. It looks to me there are vertical supports between each garage door that would support the beam spanning under the deck above. They may have had a drainage problem due to the heavy rains this season or over time thus allowing water to accumulate over an extended period of time and compromise the beam. Above the beam there are 2x4s sandwiched together which leaves me to believe the vertical supports between the garage doors are going to be of similar construction and possibly 2x6s. I think it’ll be determined to be a maintenance issue and not a fault of construction. Then again, what do I know
@@bennym1956 They would have been better off just to have never tried to fix it and just let the house fall in under its own weight. It would have collapsed quickly if they had left it alone. At least if it fell in they could have collected an insurance settlement
There's videos on RU-vid showing them putting in a stronger support beam alongside a failing one. It's not cheap but it works. They can certainly sue the builder and the town because the town's building inspectors either missed this or looked the other way on it.
My father was a civil engineer. When we were kids, riding with him in the car, he would point out poorly designed structures that were destined to collapse. There are so many designers out there that don't know their you-know-what from a hole in the ground. Scary.
"Arizona's Family" are dumbed down asses! Smith-Mundt Modernization Act 🎬 2012 made these Pressitutes of False and/or Partial Truths Propaganda for Profit-Seas! Were "too stupid" to understand what's really going on and who's to Blame Game!
Oh please, grow up. It’s mediocre journalism, not “fake” news. Words matter. Fake news would mean the house doesn’t exist and the entire story is fabricated … which for your simpleton brain means made up.
@@mewanttools7275 Not fake news. The insurance company (correctly) denied their claim. The news was poorly focused. That's a reporter that only understands the consumer complaint, but doesn't understand the actual underlying problem.
This is clearly a much more important story for the local news rather than , say, the local mobile home parks targeting and gouging elderly and disabled for "sub metered" utilities. So glad to see people setting priorities.....
Having been in structural engineering for 30 yrs, they need to go back to the home builder and the original structural engineer. The fault lies there, and they need to file a lawsuit against them. Too bad the engineering tech's didn't catch it, that was part of my job: to catch issues like that, alert the structural engineer, and design the floor and beams accordingly.
...though, did the owner add more 'stuff' to cause this? We are all assuming improper inspections etc. Homeowners are notorious for adding additions and "improvements" over time.
@@aday1637 good question, something that would come out in a lawsuit. Maybe why they don't sound like they've properly filed one yet. Most would NEVER go this many years without figuring out who's truly at fault and holding them responsible. So your question makes me wonder if they did add some or all of that stuff and are now butt-hurt because their structure can't handle it.
@@morninboy True, no self respecting engineer would. I have known people in the biz tho who liked to say "if I can't see it from my backyard"... Back in the day, we would sometimes walk jobs that were SOOOOOO out of spec you'd swear no engineer had ever looked at the plans. Like rebuild the whole multi-story bldg bad. Also there is the possibility it was an after-market job, as others have suggested. Who knows...
Fault isn't forever. Lot of things go into the determination of fault and how long it passes done the chain of title from original owner to the present. Aside from the intervening contractual barriers they may face (acceptance, waiver, due diligence, etc.) there may be statutes of limitation.
Whoever stamped the original building plans would be responsible. Building code enforcement approves and inspects plans stamped and approved by an engineer or architect. I have delt with insurance companies for over 30 years and I would be shocked if this ever got approved by a claim's agent. I wish these homeowners the best of luck getting this resolved.
The beam being wood instead of modern practice LVL shows its age. I think the problem is the span being too wide for the original or later added load. The suspect is when the fireplace was added and why it’s load is not vertically transferred to a solid concrete footing at foundation level.
I am an inspector for several insurance companies, and code violations are not covered. All I have to say is improper installation, and you're denied. I can usually find 7-10 code violations in every building.
I would love to see an update after the builder, architect, & inspectors have been contacted. I hope they can find some resolution to this. Can’t help but also wonder if there is also foundation issues.
They're usually LLC's and just declare bankruptcy, so you'll never get anything out of them. Home inspectors have a bond, in most states an inspection is required by the bank before they approve loan application, that is one avenue open to them. They need to find a way of torching the house now, that's the only way an insurance claim will bail them out now.
Here’s my take folks: whomever sealed the drawings ‘may’ be liable. Need more history of the home and info. Note: Architect does not do ‘structural’ drawings. Engineer does. AZ statute for residential is clear that it does not require an architect for single family houses. Architects are the coordinators and master conceptual designers. They formulate the aesthetic vision and work closely with the owners, and coordinate engineers and other consultants. They can seal the drawings. If they did, they can be liable. The AZ statute however, DOES require structural and civil engineer seals on plans in most residential cases. Building dept usually won’t even accept home plans without engineer. So the structural engineer that stamped-sealed the drawings and calcs are most likely liable. BUT truly, it is VERY incredibly rare that a structural engineer will undersize a beam or leave out a post. And they factor in approx. 20% oversize of things, for unexpected loads. If CHANGES were made AFTER the permit was issued, (the fireplace or other extra weight, stone or etc) were added, or maybe a post was removed for more car space in garage? Or perhaps a beam was substituted, to save money? In such case, I don’t believe any professional can be sued. -Need to see the original stamped plans, including civil engineer site drainage plans and the Geotech engineer’s soils report. Basically, we need a little more history of the home to gather conclusions just yet. In any case, this is very sad to hear. Best wishes to the owners, and glad that at least nobody was hurt.
Yep. Their issue is with the architect and/or builder, assuming they didn't add any additional structures onto the house themselves after construction. The beam used was to small to meet the code for load bearing. Did the construction company use a thinner beam to save on costs and not follow the architects plan or did the architect miscalculate the weight and design it with a beam that was too small? Could they build a double wall there with the proper support beam? Usually an additional beam is added to the existing beam, but ... if that beam is already warping, that might not be possible.
Really, its a matter of jacking and replacing undersized beam. I've done this type work with great success and it's not all that expensive if they locate the right contractor. Such is life.
that beam was to small for the span existing.. even without the load of the fireplace.. it looked to be at 20~30 feet.. that's way to long for 3 unsupported 2x8s nailed together
It seems to be a gamble to buy a house nowadays because Property developers can literally cut corners where the house can stay standing for at least 6 to 8 years and during that time the developer can easily close down and then open up the same business with a different name to avoid being sued.
One of the responsibilities of designing e dwelling. Go after the architect, engineer your original design at home and the local code compliance that approbed the building plans
How interesting they decided to try and get money from the insurance company. Do they not know that the architect, engineer and city inspector are actually at fault?! We need an update on this….
Question: were the stone fireplace and tile floors original to the design/ engineering? Solution: probably beyond the capability of an LVL without having to go custom. I beams will be the easiest solution. They are readily available in all the sizes and lengths needed to(no special order/ long wait time) Then make all needed repairs as finances will allow.
A few years back I helped a buddy put in a 40 foot long steel beam and supports to fix a similar problem in a house he had bought. It sure didn't cost him any $100K. The materials were not much money at all, and a good pizza party for everyone that helped afterwards. No troubles with it passing inspection either, we had a couple construction workers in the crew and the inspector said he'd never seen such a neat job.
I'm a contractor and am often shocked when I hear what people charge for work. Case in point... we're doing a garage fix on Friday that will cost me about $1500 for material and labor. The insurance company gave the client $7600. Another contractor bid the job for $12,500! - I told my client, "how about I do it for what your insurance company is giving you, and I'll give you the deductible back"
@@barnandhome Yea, government wanted me to buy a storm shelter for thousands when I pointed out all I need is $500 to replace my furnace that was crushed so I can melt some steal and make one. There was metal laying around everywhere for the taking.
Sounds like a builder issue. Did they have the home built or was it pre-owned. Either way the builder should be responsible and hopefully be able to retrofit it.
How did this get passed by architect, engineer, builder, contractor, city...??? Structure itself should NEVER been acceptable - NEVER met safety standards.
My parents went through issues with the dream house they built. The contractor cut corners and the backside of the building started to tear away from the building. The contractor had also left out support under the building. It had a crawlspace. They had to put in 30 concrete pads and caissons. They were fortunate enough to be able to have enough money to be able to repair it on their own. They withheld final payment from the contractor. It all ended up in court and they ended up living in the house through all of it. It got repaired fine and dandy eventually. It made life hell for them for several years.
Their favorite place/home in the entire world statement tells us most likely they have multiple houses in many locations around the world or visit regularly scenic places across the globe. To do that you must have a pretty good life. Not a reason why you wouldn't file an insurance claim instead of spending your cash but they have it to spend if need be. Move everything out and then let it colap[see then rebuild it properly with the insurance money.
Sue the architect and the inspector that approved the plans. This is a design and construction issue. Architects have to have a license and plans have to approved.
After we had a house fire in 2019 I suffer ptsd from how the insurance company treated us and what they put us through. We got our house fixed but the process of dealing with them was beyond stressful. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone.
The house was built in 2005. The beam above the garage door is severely water damaged. They should be able to get the insurance company to pay for water intrusion damage.
Could have been a soil settling issue that exacerbated a design and materials issue that was on the edge of being trouble. I recall my parents builder in the 70’s who would create lots and leave them for a full year to settle before building. Not an option these days.
Im guessing it was privately designed. Someone purchased the land and designed their own home. They "knew an architect", maybe "a friend" who drew up the plans to the best of their "experience". If land evaluations/testing weren't done, there is problem #1. If the architect was new to the field that is problem #2. If the original plans were altered placing the garage under the house, that is problem #3. If builders'crew were brought in from the outside of nurseries, that is problem #4. If this was built to flip, the owner may have paid off the inspector, problem #5. Real estate sales inspector should have caught the blatant issue (unsupported fireplace & columns) but..... It sure makes me think the garage wasn't originally under the house. An architect creates many pages in a set of house plans. Each plan is signed off by an engineer...electrical engineer, plumbing engineer, structural engineer, etc etc etc.... Skip the specialist's stamp of approval and the results are this house. Ultimately it is: The architect, the inspector and finally the builder who are at fault.
@@SledDog5678 good luck pinning anything on the inspector. City or independent. Garage beam was covered with drywall like everything else. At least at final inspection. Prior to that if it was built per plan and the city or county inspector wasn’t smart enough to see the structural deficiencies at the strap and shear inspection or even at the frame inspection. All they’ll say is it was built per plan. And if that’s the case it should have been discovered by the plan checkers prior to the permit being issued. The homeowner should sue everyone involved including the builders subcontractors and anyone else they can. I agree the architect has responsibility but the structural engineers that signed off on this are the ones holding the bag. But like I said the homeowner should include everyone in a lawsuit and let the court sort the responsible parties out by their limitations of liability. They have a horrible mess on their hands in every way possible on this one.
The Insurance policy verbiage clearly says; "that the collapse has to happen suddenly on Friday the 13th during a leap year between the hours of noon an 2PM while the First Lady of the White House comes for a visit." Had they only waited for this to happen the Insurance company would have been more than happy to cover their claim after the couple payed out a $250K deductible.
Steel I beam is what is needed. We had a home that carried 3 stories and a wood beam would not support that with the weight of a floor to ceiling fire place. We installed a steel I beam with steel posts and it worked fine. Had we not had a good builder, another may have left the wood beam which would have shifted as the house aged.
3 story home...good lord. Not needed. 3 flights of steps? I have seen townhome styled builds like that. They're dreadful!!!! I bet accidents from falling down steps goes up 3X in a home like that. :D
How did this house pass inspection when it was under construction? I don't know what AZs building codes are, but in any state support beams have to be more than just adequate to keep the house from crumbling.
What should have also been discussed in this story is how could the architectural firm and the builder get away with this substandard design and construction and how did all this pass inspection from the city? I would say consult with the proper attorney asap.
@@blockygamer6684 Horse crap. Perhaps they weren't paying attention, or did the all American thing and got cheap to pocket some extra loot... Who knows? Me, I didn't have the opportunity to finish high school. Actually never even saw the need to.... However, I developed a significant and engineered construction technology for which I wrote my own application discussion, did my own drawings and submitted to the U.S.P.T.O. for which I was granted a patent for... A technology that is so significant in fact that Arizona would be chomping at the bit to utilize if all those "educated" jack wads running the show had any sense.. And my architectural rendition utilizing this technology is flawless..... What is it you may ask? It is a technology that would allow for the construction and instillation of one linear mile per day of a superior southern border protection barrier that is based on a concrete format that can cost 1/3rd to 1/2 less than what is currently being forced on the taxpayer by the United States Army Corp of Engineers and for which can be in place at the production value of 1 linear mile per day..... People with some sort of degree don't necessarily impress me.... I know better, seen better, hell, I have even done better... So save your snark, wit, and sarcasm for someone else that would either be impressed, or fooled by your line of horse crap.... Oh, and did I cheat? Damn straight I did..... And for a damned good effect and a damned good reason.... So enjoy playing by the rules while life fuks over on you..... Because everyone else is doing it....... Thank you very much.....
If the beam on the first floor is not strong enough to carry the load of the structure above, it was (apparently) not engineered correctly. Look like the architect/designer (maybe the builder?) made a serious mistake.
My 1979 Tennessee Brick Ranch had a brick fireplace that stuck out in the room like an eyesore. It was a behemoth he decided to take it out because one day my husband was standing next to the door, and glanced along the edge of where the brick met the drywall and saw a gap that gap was an inch. Which is pretty darn significant. We start inspecting the fireplace and saw that the gap was inside as well away from the block chimney. They have never the builder had not secured the brick face to the block with the proper metal straps. They were completely disconnected. We could’ve been sitting in here watching TV and that entire brick wall could’ve collapsed on us. The brick wall went all the way up to the ceiling and was about 9 feet wide. We decided to take it down including the hearth, which was 2 feet high and about a foot deep. It was a behemoth in the room. It was a huge project, removing it. Once we got it out we could see the gaps on the flooring the weight of all that brick and concrete and mortar was absolutely ridiculous sitting on a wood floor. Yes, the 2 x 6 choices were fine however, there were gaps clearly it had not only settled but now was a huge liability. It was all removed.
vertical beam is called a column. This is NOT an insurance issue. They need research whether the contractor built to the approved drawings. If not, go after him. If they did, go after the Architect.
My first thought is was the stone fire place an add on or did the architect know about the pile of rocks in the middle of room? Second thought was drainage issues and how much that contributed with the record rains we just got
Farmers was the worse to deal with after we were hit by a tornado at lake of the Ozark. We actually paid extra for tornado insurance and they still denied us for months. Eventually farmers insurance guy came out and constantly told us what wasn’t covered, all I wanted todo was ring his scrawny neck!
Were the stone columns and fireplace part of the original build, or were they added by the homeowners at a later time? That's key in determining if the builder is liable.
I wonder about the stone fireplace. It is strange house was ok for 7 years, failure should have begun showing immediately. I'd be curious if cultured stone was called for in plans, but then real stone was added later as part of a remodel.
I do have to say, that is one gorgeous desert lot they have. Love the house, the semi circular driveway, the entire lot. I'm in Canada, but my brother and sis in law lived in Arizona for ten years before cancer took him. They both fell love with the desert landscape, and built a brand new home in El Mirage. They would have loved this home.
Thank you AZFamily for listening to the real American People and therefore helping because you Publish so we all can be Witness to suffering and then maybe something positive can come of your involvement! May Yahuah The Most High God Bless you journalists for The Truth In All Things. Glory Halleluyah!
At least they got it stabilized so they didn't lose their beautiful home. Our garage has a larger beam over the large door and is only one story. Very frustrating as you can see the slight dip in their roof-line.
I’m curious if the stone fireplace and concrete was the original build, or was added afterwards. If it was afterwards, the builder isn’t responsible. If it was a diy by the previous owner, there may not be a way to collect even if found liable. This will be an interesting case to follow.
With most of these BS stories where some losers run to the media with their sob story to get sympathy from idiots in order to cajole a settlement from an insurance company on something not covered.... something is almost certainly not being said.
Somebody Approved those plans. Architect/Engineer blew the mission. Also, the contractor should have caught that. But of course he’ll say “the plans were approved”!😢
Still adding a support beam, either of wood or steel, adds more weight; they had best be sure the foundation itself can carry that weight, and something tells me the foundation itself may not be adequate.
Flooding is usually NOT covered, it's separate from normal insurance. Fire may not be covered fully either. You should check with your insurance, you may be surprised. My neighbors were when the apartment upstairs burned their house out.
The building department that did the inspections and approval for this home need to be looked at. There are many good attorneys that would take on this case. This is a structural integrity issue not a collapse yet.
I once lived in a subdivision where the cast concrete chimneys were separating from the housing structure. My neighbor had a fire in their fireplace one night. The separation caused a gap from the heat shield. Hot gases started a fire within the wall that wasn’t discovered until a few hours had passed. Everyone got out okay. The company that had made the chimneys was out of business by this time. Contractors long gone. 15-20 year old subdivision. I asked my insurance company what they could do to prevent it from happening in my home. They said the same thing. They wouldn’t pay for any fixes. There has to be an “event” before they step in. Not taking their side. That is the business of insurance. Sometimes you are betting against calamity to yourself with the premiums you pay.
As a builder if you look at the header in the video you will note the beam has deteriorated for a very long time due to water infiltration which caused it to become saturated / rot. Go to minute 1:41...this was a neglected but obvious maintenance issue and to those who say sue the builder I suggest that home is at least 20 plus years old. So what was the culprit for the problem? That beloved sun deck loaded up with ceramic tiles etc and the funny thing is the drawing you show don't show the "FIREPLACE" on the deck. Sorry no free passes here, this has been an ongoing problem
Being a retired insurance agent I understand how frustrating this is to the homeowner. If the house is only 7 years old. I would be calling the builder and pulling out my builders warranty. This house was not constructed properly to bear the weight of the upper story. Next stop would be a appointment with a lawyer. I would also be interested if other homes built in this area by the builder have the same inadequate construction. When you insure a new home you as the agent and insurance company go by the building inspections by the county and the local building codes. This is a legal mess in which the owner, the builder, the realty company who sold the home are all going to be standing in a circle pointing at each other.
Insurance only covers after the fact, they don't cover preventative measures. How is it that the building passed inspection with such inadequate sub-structure?
Sadly some inspections are not that great. Like the code, it's a minimum of oversight to try to bring some safety into the mix. If the inspector has time they'll pick your place apart. Other days they inspect it from inside the truck.
I had a royal palm tree that was dropping leaves that left a 2 foot hole in the ground when they hit. The insurance company they would not pay to have the tree cut down but, if it or a leaf fell on the roof and caused damage then they would. It was next to our bedroom so we had it cut down for $500 (this way 28 years ago). Just got a notice from my homeowners insurance who now say they don't cover sinkhole damage. I live in TN. Apparently it is a thing here.
After reading the comments about suing the right party, it almost seems like the couple is trying to squeeze the insurance company instead of having to retain a lawyer to sue the builder and developers and the city who inspected the building of the house. They know who they should be going after after, they're trying to shame Farmers into paying.
They're hosed. Most likely state law has a statute of limitations, almost certainly shorter than 7 years, protecting the builder and engineer from being sued. Generally builders get WAY more protection from state laws than homeowners do. And the insurance policy language is crystal clear. Even if they had waited a month or two for the whole thing to fall down, that wouldn't be "sudden" and probably would mean the claim would be denied. If you don't have the expertise or common sense to see a problem with the plans, it's advisable to hire someone who does to have a look.
@@michaelreyes8182 Agreed that's an option. A statute of limitations is law however, so the suit in a court of law would be more difficult. I don't think we know from the report how old the house is. They had it 7 years. They may have bought it from a previous owner.
