Just what were the "responsibilities" of the engineer if not to discover what was in the walls or admit he didn't know and that costs might rise?

That was my assumption, but it's clear the contractor doesn't see it that way. I would prefer not to sue, but rather come to an amicable solution. I just don't know how far I can push this without resulting in litigation. Clearly $12.5k for removing, retrofitting and adding stucco back only works in their favor....

Did you get other quotes for the project? Was he a low-ball quote and is now trying to make up the difference?

I'm not sure I follow. Did you proceed with the project based on the engineer's opinion that there was OSB present? And if he had said there wasn't OSB present, you wouldn't have?

I did. He was towards the bottom. I'm sure he's trying to get more money, but how much I push back is partially based on where I stand legally. If the engineer made assumptions that weren't true, that to me is his fault. I don't mind paying some form of the cost given I do like the windows, but $12.5k seems outrageous.

You can always try for a claim with the E&O insurance, but that’s as difficult as suing. You have to legally prove that he “should” have known something that was invisible. Hidden conditions clauses will come into effect. No one is ever responsible for hidden conditions on a project, except the owner. That’s always the risk of any renovation. The only way that you can prove that conditions existed that were known are copes of the original plans, showing the structural plan. And a written receipt that shows the architect and engineer received a copy of them.

It’s only 12.5K. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of any litigation. Or any real structural change. 12.5K is the Starbucks money for a SF renovation involving structural changes. You’re getting off light no matter what.

You can sue for up to $10K in California small claims court.

But better always to try and work something out.

A lesson for others to take lots of photos during construction.

It’s more a lesson to do forensic analysis via your chosen contractor and engineer, FIRST. With them and you documenting the ripped apart house. Then, once the structure‘s skeleton can be seen, actual engineering for the desired changes can happen. Destruction is easy. So is repairing drywall. A 5K bill for an autopsy of existing conditions in advance might have saved maybe a couple of K in engineering fees. It’s doubtful that someone would pay 5K only to kill the dream, close it back up, and drop the project. But it lets the project be planned from a position of a lot more information.

Maybe having the GC bring in his own Engineer is not a good idea, just like using the Inspector recommended by a Realtor is usually not a good idea.

When we bought a lot, by chance we went with a different Surveyor than the one the realtor recommended. He was a decent surveyor, but he had also surveyed the neighboring lot sold by the same realtor and it turns out he had made a mistake and it would have affected our lot, because he would have just used the information he already had. The other surveyor we hired started with fresh data and found the mistake.

The engineer's calculations were based on certain assumptions regarding existing conditions. As live_wire_oak noted, some investigative demolition would have eliminated the uncertainty and enabled you make a more informed choice.

That said, you are where you are. I'd explore options to meet the shear wall criteria without the need to remove and reinstall the exterior cladding. You may, for example, be able to meet the requirements by removing drywall, installing let-in bracing and/or applying sheathing to the interior side of the studs and then reinstall drywall on top of it.

There are limits to visual inspection if the wall wasn’t opened up and he didn’t do the structural systems inspection, himself. OSB behind stucco was a very reasonable assumption for a California PE or S.E. to make, and if the contract didn’t include site inspection or any forensics in the contract he is well within his best practices for licensure, and has a good defense should it go to court.

The problem, if there is any, is with the GC/builder and contract first and foremost. If you can establish that they were supposed to do the design with the engineer AFTER verifying the existing site conditions then the engineer would be the one to call and seek recompense with.

But it the contractor only engaged his services for design prior to any demo of those walls, that’s not his fault, it is an issue with the

contractor.

I think your contractor is trying to pull a fast one you unless you have a few disclaimer notes which say something like this:

• " CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMENSIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGINNING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK."
• Or: " To the best of my knowledge these plans are drawn to comply with owner's and/ or builder's specifications and any changes will be done at the owner's and/or builder's expense and responsibility."
• Or " IT IS A HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL DETAILS"

These typical disclaimers are listed all the time on the drawings or contracts to cover their A$$.

As everything else goes:

• Did the contractor told you prior or specified in the contract that his estimate is based on engineers or his assumptions and extra charges will apply if they have to make changes?
• Did your contractor include and specified in the contract that sheer wall is included in the scope of his work and is there a sheer wall detail on the plan that he had to do? Or he skipped doing that work thinking he can get away with it?
• Let's say OSB was an assumption...Didn't contractor know and told you when he had the wall open and was preparing an opening for the windows that there is no OSB present and this will not pass inspection and that extra charges will apply to meet that requirement?

Someone had to know something especially in CA where towns require details for every screw to be included in the drawings and I doubt they approve anything based on assumptions...

Credentialed professionals aren't going to put their licenses and livelihoods at risk to make whatever marginal profit is associated with a $12,500 change order. It appears that a short cut was taken in the design and evaluation phase due to ignorance, laziness or lack of experience. What both have put at risk is their professional reputations, which should be worth a whole lot more than $12,500.

The engineer was hired by your contractor-- not by you, so I don't think you have any direct recourse with the engineer. That said, if your contractor is responsible for both design and construction of your project, he has a higher level of obligation to you to deliver the desired project outcome. When a "surprise" like this happens the contractor should, at the very least, implement the change for actual costs incurred-- with no overhead and profit.

The contractor has failed inspections through no fault of yours and every fault of his and the engineer he hired. They gambled on an assumption, reasonable or not, and lost. I'd tell these guys to pound sand and get that big fat red tag the hell off my property.

Am I missing something here? It sounds as if the work needs to be done to bring the structure up to code and the quibble is about when that was discovered. That it might have been noted sooner and included in original cost estimates is a fair criticism and might cause the contractor to lose a star in your Yelp review, but it doesn't change the fact that the work needs to be done either way. If the work needs to be done then, as I understand how the world works, the owner needs to pay for it. Why would you expect the engineer to cover $12K of required work on your house over a timing issue of when you found out? That's what construction contingency budget lines are meant to cover.

A contingency line item is intended to cover costs that couldn't reasonably be anticipated. At issue is whether the installation of sheathing would be a reasonable assumption.

Another issue is the cost of the contingency relative to the overall project budget. A $12,500 expense on a $125,000 project is still 10% which is a most unpleasant surprise on a $125K project and even more so on a smaller project.

Mid 70s CA homes had "let in" diagonal 1x4 bracing for shear if they didn't have T-111 siding. Stucco was 3 coat over wire lath. Likely current engineering tables won't allow values. Not all remodelers & engineers will know that as most are long gone. I was a teen.

I don't typically do remodels but there are always unknowns.

If your contractor hired the engineer and relied on his advice, he should do the work and charge you for materials cost only - he should eat all labor costs. Ensure you receive receipts/invoices for all material purchases as well.

The negligence question becomes one of proximate cause, as torts generally make you whole, not better off. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this really was engineering negligence. For negligence there must be a direct line between the failure of duty and the damage. Thus, the recovery amount will be limited to the marginal expenditures caused by this error.

In other words, if $10,000 of that $12,500 would have still been incurred had the engineering report been accurate, then your recovery amount would be the additional $2,500 that the engineer's negligence cost you, rather than the full amount.

I expect this is your major bar to recovery. I would expect the contractor and engineer to claim most of these charges would have been necessary had the engineer known the actual condition of the wall.

Best of luck.

rwiegand, my understanding is not that there was an issue of extra costs associated with the work that was not done, but rather work that has already been completed will have to be removed or reworked to do this work? So instead of 12.5k it may have been something less if the issue had been caught prior to inspection. Is that correct jmbostock?

No one likes surprises on a remodel and there are always surprises. It's virtually impossible to discover everything under the drywall before you tear into it.

I agree it's not possible to discover everything under the drywall without some investigative demolition, but that's not an excuse for doing little or no investigation. A trip to the attic and crawlspace or basement in any areas to be remodeled should be routine investigations when evaluating the feasibility and cost of any remodel.

There are relatively inexpensive high-tech tools available to aid with such investigation work. Fiber optic and IR cameras are both minimally invasive. We find we can often get a look into a stud cavity with the fiber optic camera by removing a switch or receptacle cover without the need to do any demolition.

I suggest that the extent and quality of investigative work is one way homeowners can differentiate professional remodelers from the guys whose principal qualifications are that they own a truck and a dog.

Wanted to say thanks to everyone for their input.

To close things out, the contractor and I came to a compromise where he's paying for Labor and I'm paying for the materials. At this point the wall needs to get done so the ship has sailed on avoiding the hassle. Overall I'll pay too much for the windows, but there are lessons learned all around, so I'll take that and move on.

Good luck! Glad it worked out.

I'm glad that you was able to come to a resolution. Hope it is smooth sailing from here to the finish!

MiniSplit Heat - You are promoting your services after the problem has been resolved. And it looks odd when you like your own comment.

A "barrister" trolling for project work in California? I guess Brexit does have far-reaching implications.

That explains "Making a claim against a professionally."

It’s a Chinese social media management company with several clients. With a bit search. Very common way to SPAM unfortunately.

Looks like MiniSplit did a major split.