Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your candor. -Kyle M
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Steve Leyton <[email protected]>; Michael Hill <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage I've served as an expert witness in more cases than I can recall at this moment and I can tell you this about civil law: Lawyers are business people and civil litigators are often greedy business people. No lawyer is going to sue if there's no money in it. Often, they can be influenced to settle or dissuaded from even filing if the path to getting paid appears like it will be more trouble or direct cost than it's worth. I am EXTREMELY proud of the fact that I've been in business nearly 25 years and have never had to make a claim or even put our insurance company on notice. But the closest we came to getting sucked in was when a tough-talker from NYC got involved in the acrimonious after-effects of a project that went pretty wrong on a number of levels here in San Diego. Our work was limited to planning, schematics, bid docs and specs and we weren't the designer of record (ironically, the developer and owner declined our proposal for CDs or it might have gone differently.) When it was over the owner/tenant sued everybody including the sprinkler sub and I got called into a meeting with the owner and their counsel (the aforementioned NYC guy). He was very grandiose and projected a Wannabe Melvin Belli persona but I pushed back pretty hard. He finally boiled it down to some threats and strongly hinted that an offer to settle on my part would make the "problem" go away. I stared this a-hole down and told him, "I've been an expert in at least 30 cases. You've estimated damages at $750,000 but the fact is that your whole claim for fire protection hinges on a tenuous and highly subjective code interpretation. Even if you're right and an entire new standpipe riser is required, the direct cost of that will be about $45,000 at most. The connection point is in the garage where there's no ceiling or demolition required, the pump is adequately sized and the piping will run exposed into and up through a stairwell. I will tie you up for weeks trying to prove the deficiency and I caution you that I'm a principal member of the NFPA technical committee on standpipes so you will not be able to find an expert to impeach me anywhere in this country. I figure you bill about $750 an hour to pay for your Park Avenue address and your staff is well paid. It will cost you dozens of thousands to collect on that $45K, if you can even prove the deficiency." And then I smiled and winked at him. It's all about the money and the strategy in civil law is to intimidate, claim 8x what it may be worth and settle for wages. It's a &*)^@! game is what it is and that's how they make their living, on the presumption that a case will settle and that defendants will accept paying the deductible and moving on. But our trade is different because, how proving the value of "damages" is nebulous at best. If windows and doors are installed poorly (possibly the most common construction defect claim), you can prove damages by collecting evidence of water intrusion, wall and ceiling repairs, replacement or re-sealing of windows and doors, etc. Same for most other trades - measuring damages is relatively straightforward as is costing out repairs/replacement. But how do you evaluate damages if a sprinkler system is covering 42,000 sq. ft. of storage and is otherwise correctly installed and hydraulically designed? You can't, unless it fails in a fire so that's where good lawyering and a skilled expert witness come in. I am NOT advocating for any level of disregard for the published codes and standards, only commenting on the subjectivity of "right and wrong" in the world of civil torts. My opinion only, I am not a lawyer and I've never seen a single episode of either LA Law or Boston Legal. Steve L. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hill via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 12:19 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Michael Hill Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage Lawyers will argue whatever they think will keep their client, the insurance company, from having to pay out a large sum. Doesn't matter what it pertains too. After a fire they will call in everyone associated with the building, including the cleaning lady that comes in every other Sunday. Every little thing that they claim "could" have added to the fire will save their client money. It doesn't seem to be about right and wrong anymore. It's how many people can they get to share the blame. So designing a system that is 2000 sq. ft. over what NFPA states is the maximum, would mean you just took responsibility for the entire thing. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kyle.Montgomery via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 1:50 PM To: Parsley Consulting <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Brian Harris <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Misc. Storage I understand that perspective. I often have a similar conversation with the PE who reviews our plans. I'm curious to those of you who have been in a lawsuit situation or just those that understand the legal system better than I do: Is the mere fact that something was not "to code" enough to find fault, or does there need to be some kind of proof or reasonable suspicion that the omission actually in some way contributed to the damage? For example, if someone designed a storage facility as a light hazard occupancy, and it burned down, it would be pretty easy to point at that and say the sprinkler system was inadequate and likely contributed to the damage. Conversely, if you were to properly design a storage facility, but have a zone that exceeds the allowable area by 2,000 sq. ft., it would seemingly be very difficult to prove that the extra area contributed to the damage. In all likelihood, you'd be looking at a sprinkler system that did its job and minimized property loss and kept people safe. My argument is that the goal should not necessarily be minimizing/eliminating all risk, but establishing an acceptable amount of risk and not exceeding it. But that's easy for me to say since I'm not the one with the extra initials who stamps his name on the plans. This is the part where I need to add the disclaimer that this is just my opinion and not that of my employer. -Kyle M
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
