Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 11
Case 2:03—cv—01415—ROS Document 148-12 Filed 12/14/2005 Page1 013

` GERVASIO 63 ASSOC.,INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
r'602) 285-1720 · 77 East Thomas Road, Suite 120
I-’HOEN|X,AR|ZONA asoiz WRF
Jury 8,2005 JUL 1 2 2005
William R. Phillips. Esq.
BROENING. OBERG, WOODS & WILSON. P.C.
P.O. Box 20527
Phoenix. AZ 85038-0527
RE: SIMMS RESIDENCE
Simms v. State Farm
WATER DAMAGE INVESTIGATION
G&A Job N0. 1096.1 F
Dear Mr. Phillips:
In review of the Simms residence on June 20. 2005. Howard Droz. R.A. and Robert Baldinger, P.E. of Gervasio 8;
Assoc.. Inc. observed the original construction and the remediation work at the Simms guest house at Biltmore Estates
#42, in Phoenix. Arizona. The home under construction to the south and next to the Simms residence was completely
destroyed by fire in March of200l. This fire caused some fire damage to the Simms residence and guest house. I was
asked to investigate the water damage at the guest house at the following areas, i.e.. second floor window located on
the south end on the east elevation and the electric power panel located on the first floor at the east end ofthe south
f* elevation. The facts and evidence ofour investigation show that the water damages were caused from a lack ofdesign.
maintenance. and not caused from the fire.
The existing second floor window (Photo I ) was not part ofthe remediation work after the fire. The windows installed
were flange types not as shown on the Contract Documents (see Drawing D-3 attached). Since this window was
installed first, the EIFS (Exterior Insulation Einish System) followed. This gap is likely to be a result of this
sequencing. The open gap at the sill and south jamb at the perimeter was discovered and photographed by the Plaintiffs
industrial hygienist. Mitchell L. Payes. This exterior sill was observed to not have any sealant at or near the gap (Photos
2. 3 8: 4). The unsealed conditions allowed water to enter the interior of the wall. Water damage was photographed
by Mr. Payes (Photo 5) who removed the interior gypsum wallboard. This water damage is located below the window
and extends to the southeast comer. This water damage was not caused by the tire.
The electric power panel was originally installed and attached directly to a plywood panel that was nailed to the
underlying OSB board (Photos 6 thru 9). Exterior EIFS to the guest house was interrupted by the installation of the
electric power panel, leaving the plywood panel andthe OSB board unprotected (Photos 8 & 9). It is my understanding
that Rob Burttram, the Plaintiffs repair contractor. has testified that after the fire the electric power panel was moved
outward a little to make surrounding repairs and then placed the panel back to its original location. The Simms
residence Contract Documents listed on the first drawing that this design would follow the l994 Unifomi Building Code
(UBC). The Code requires a weathenresistive barrier to protect the exterior sheathing as written in Section l402.| (see
attached).
Another design error was found at the electric power panel where the panel was located directly below the roofscupper.
This was the original roofscupper location. Approximately 65 percent ofthe guest house roof rain water fell directly
onto the electric power panel below. This excessive wetting ofthe electrical panel allowed water to enter the interior,
f causing deterioration ofthe surrounding wood framing and the perimeter sealant (Photo I I). The weather—resistive
barrier exclusion. a design error, allowed water to enter past the exterior sheathing and water damaged the interior wood
Case 2:03—cv—01415—ROS Document 148-12 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 2 of 3

f. William Pe Philips. Esq.
‘ July 8, 2005
G&A Job No. 1096.1 F
Page 2 1
framing. Also. the electrical notes on the Contract Drawings did not make any reference on how to waterproof the
exterior wallwhere the electric power panel was located (see attached).
IN CONCLUSION, the water damage observed was present due to lack of proper design. If these two original
construction conditions has been designed correctly and maintained by the Owner. the water damage would not have
occurred.
The disclosure information that has been requested is as follows:
I. The wage rate for Howard L. Droz is $125.00/hour.
2. My CV is attached listing some of my publications.
3. In the last four years. I was deposed twice for two different cases:
· Case Name — In the appeals of Bateson - Dailey. joint venture contract #V101CC—0O52. VA Medical Center,
Detroit, Michigan: Before the Department of Veterans Affairs Board of Contract Appeals - Case
VABCA6960-6980: Deposition date: January 12. 2005, approximately 8 hours long. Fact witness for VA.
f • Case Name - SmithGroup, Inc. v. MCW Holding, L.L.C., et al.. Case #76Yl 10 00255 Ol MAGE: Arbitration:
Deposition date; August 2. 2005: Fact witness for SmithGroup. Inc.
If you have any further questions, please free to call.
Sincerely.
GERVASIO & ASSOC. INC.
»€¤ 0 p
.4 ,
i Q . Qgé , I / . 1
I ` ;) q fh g \_
i "" { V i`}
. __ ti U `{ §
_ _ Z O z
A . ·—
. i ta- i
¤ .-e·e r
Howard L. Droz, R.A.
Forensic Architect
I—ILD:blm
f AU&Cl`lTl'1€Tl[S
Case 2:03—cv—01415—ROS Document 148-12 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 148-12

Filed 12/14/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 148-12

Filed 12/14/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 148-12

Filed 12/14/2005

Page 3 of 3