A construction defect dispute involving a mixed-use development centered on alleged water intrusion within a three-story below-grade parking garage. The development included retail space at the ground level, residential apartments above and the parking structure below.
The plaintiff’s expert attributed the water intrusion primarily to the construction of the garage and asserted significant damages. By the time YA Group was engaged, the parties held substantially different positions regarding the cause and responsibility for the alleged defects, making resolution challenging.
A key consideration in the matter involved the concept of “brother’s keeper,” under which subcontractors proceeding with their work may be considered to have inspected and accepted preceding work. Language within the subcontractors’ agreements specifically addressed this responsibility, making the sequence of inspections and approvals an important component of the dispute.
Challenge Overview
Determining responsibility required a detailed understanding of the construction sequence, contractual requirements and inspections performed before subsequent work proceeded. With significant disagreement among the parties regarding the alleged defects, identifying documentation that could establish who had reviewed and approved the work became critical.
YA Group’s forensic engineering and construction defect experts conducted an extensive review of the project records. During this process, the team located Inspector of Record reports documenting inspections performed before concrete was placed within the garage.
Significantly, the Inspector of Record had been retained by the plaintiff and had inspected and signed off on the preceding work at issue. These records provided important context for evaluating the responsibilities of the subcontractors and the application of the “brother’s keeper” provisions contained within their agreements.
YA Group’s Area of Impact
YA Group’s investigation and document review provided technical support for counsel’s position that the subcontractors could rely on the inspections and approvals of the Inspector of Record as a subject matter expert. The documentation established that the plaintiff’s own representative had inspected and approved the preceding work before subsequent construction activities moved forward.
These findings helped counsel address questions surrounding responsibility for the alleged defects and provided critical technical context to support the defense strategy.
The matter ultimately reached a settlement, demonstrating how detailed forensic investigation and project document review can uncover critical information, clarify the circumstances surrounding a construction defect claim and provide counsel with technical findings to support resolution.
