Here is a sampling of some recent KPAA forensic projects:
LABORATORY TESTING YIELDS VALUABLE RESULTS ON MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT
San Diego, CA
Helping to defend a major San Diego builder against a claim of defectively built party walls, Tom Jenkins prepared plans and specifications for a load-bearing wall assembly matching the "as built" conditions. The wall assembly was then constructed and was subjected to laboratory fire testing. The assembly passed all requirements of the 2-hour fire endurance tests, providing compelling evidence that the plaintiff's expert's party wall claims (and multi-million dollar demand for associated repair costs) were unwarranted.
EXHIBITS HELP CLIENT REACH FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT
Chula Vista, CA
KPAA received a last-minute request for exhibits explaining some of the Fire Code’s residential sprinkler requirements. Bruce Bergman and managing architect Duane Brown worked together to create the needed exhibits. At a mediation the following Monday, Bay Cobb had an opportunity to present the information to the plaintiff attorneys and to the mediator, who quickly grasped the meaning of what KPAA had to say. It took the heart out of the plaintiffs' claims, and led to a settlement then and there.
IN DEFENSE OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND ARCHITECTS
California, Nevada, and Arizona
KPA Associates, Inc. has helped to defend design professionals as well as framers, roofers, sheet metal contractors, waterproofing contractors, drywall contractors, stucco contractors, shower door installers, ceramic tile contractors, and finish carpenters. We conduct inspections and observe destructive testing directly and review field documentation by others. We strive to get the full picture, evaluating not only the work performed by our client but also related issues of maintenance, the work of other parties, scheduling, scopes of work, and design aspects.
FORTUNE 500 BUILDER PREVAILS IN PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Andrew Bowen evaluated reports, drawings, photographs, and building codes to assess the plaintiff's claim that a window opening was a safety hazard as designed and built. Andrew testified in a jury trial that the design of the window opening met the Code and that the opening was built as shown on the approved drawings. The jury returned a defense verdict.