Investigating the collapse of the Surfside Condominium

The collapse of the Champlain Towers South has raised numerous questions about construction, inspections and the factors contributing to its failure.

There is extensive documentation to indicate there was a lack of proper maintenance to the building and not just a one-time event, but a systemic lack over decades. (Photo: Gerald Herbert/AP)

The investigation and ongoing litigation into the tragic collapse of the Champlain Towers South condominium in Surfside, Fla. continue to this day. As per the judge in a recent hearing, the trial will commence in March 2023. A previous article discussed potential underwriting changes as a result of this collapse. This article focuses on the more pressing issues from an insurance claims perspective, root cause and liability.

Possible causes of failure

In forensic engineering investigations, the scientific method is the court-accepted methodology in which the root cause is determined. What that means is that all possible causes of failure must first be identified and then, through an analysis of the evidence, those possible causes that don’t align with the physical evidence can be discarded.

When we review the Surfside collapse, the complete list of all possible causes of failure include:

  1. Design
  2. Installation
  3. Operation
  4. Maintenance
  5. External acts
  6. Act of God

A few of these can be ruled out pretty simply. An act of God would be if a hurricane or earthquake knocked over the building, which we know didn’t happen. Secondly, this was a condominium building, so it was being operated for its intended purpose. If you run a piece of mechanical equipment 24 hours a day to the point of failure and the equipment manual states that every 12 hours you should turn the machine off and lubricate certain parts, then you have a failure to adhere to “proper operation.”

There are multiple reports to indicate that there were errors, whether intentional or accidental, in the design and installation. Several articles discuss potential bribes to city officials, evidence of shoddy construction and other salacious points of interest. While these errors may exist, for purposes of determining liability they are irrelevant. The statute of repose in Florida is 10 years, which means that plaintiffs are prohibited from bringing claims for latent construction defects after a period of 10 years.

Several reports have discussed the impact of the construction work taking place at the adjacent 87 Park structure. These construction activities included excavation, pile-driving and other general construction activities. There is a report that this construction work allowed water to flow into the Champlain Towers structure and possibly compromise the support structure. This would be considered an external act. The insurers that carry the surety bond for this building should be concerned because the investigation into Surfside could substantially impact the anticipated completion timeline for this project.

Additionally, the insurers that carry the commercial general liability (CGL) policies for the contractors working on this site, or if it is covered under a wrap-up policy, either an Owner-Controlled Insurance Package (OCIP) or Contractor-Controlled Insurance Package (CCIP), have reasons to be concerned. They will have to investigate to determine if they have undeniable evidence to show that their activities in no way contributed to the Surfside issue. As we have seen in many construction defect litigation lawsuits, even parties that had no responsibility whatsoever in the core issue can end up spending money on defense costs and many times contribute to a settlement, simply because it’s cheaper and less risky than taking the case to trial.

There is extensive documentation to indicate there was a lack of proper maintenance to the building and not just a one-time event, but a systemic lack over decades. One unique piece of evidence involves Miami-Dade’s building re-certification program. Since it has been in place since the 1970s, it has been long recognized that the beachfront/saltwater atmosphere wreaks havoc on concrete and steel structures. The county requires that all multi-family buildings be inspected every 40 years to ensure they still have sufficient structural integrity for their intended use.

A Morabito Consultants report dated October 8, 2018, is a key piece of evidence. The report begins with issues very relevant to life and safety, which are individual balconies and their railings. Balcony collapses, while rare, are consistently in the minds of engineers when they inspect properties. Similarly, the balcony railings are also areas of consistent concern. If the railings themselves are rusted, or if the connections of the railing to the balcony are weak, then those are both items that need to be immediately addressed.

Related to the structural collapse, however, are the items identified near the end of the report. The waterproofing membrane below the pool deck and the entrance drive have already failed and are causing “major structural damage.” Morabito also notes that the waterproofing was laid on a flat structure, which means water sits there until it evaporates. Technically, this is a design defect because the structure should have been designed with a slight grade to allow the water to drain. However, as stated earlier, the statute of repose means that the original architect is not subject to any liability.

In many construction projects, these types of design deficiencies or other installation deficiencies are noted over time. Every single building has at least one design or installation defect, if not multiple. For example, a common installation deficiency is using the wrong materials. This author worked on another condo project on South Padre Island where they installed zinc-plated fasteners with the stucco to the exterior of the building instead of galvanized fasteners, which were called for in the specifications.  The result was the zinc-plated fasteners rusted in the high humidity/saltwater environment within a couple of years and little red dots appeared all over the building. Since this occurred within the 10-year Texas statute of repose, the stucco installation contractor was held responsible as well as the general contractor for the $2.5 million stucco removal and replacement to the entire exterior of the building.

When these design or construction deficiencies are identified through normal maintenance processes or during major renovations, it is the responsibility of the engineer to bring these issues to light with the owner and discuss how to resolve the issue. It is important to note that design or installation defects can exist forever and never cause any problems.

Following the timeline of events

Recent reports provide a more detailed timeline of events.  It is now known that several loud booms were heard about 1:00 a.m. on that fateful night. Eyewitness reports indicate that the pool deck collapsed first about 1:15 a.m. and then the tower collapsed at approximately 1:22 a.m. While eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable, multiple, independent testimonies that corroborate the same general story help forensic engineers determine the sequence of events. Additionally, if the pool deck collapsed first, when they do the debris removal they will find it at the bottom of the debris pile.

The last cause for concern related to liability is that during the search-and-rescue operations, there was some debris removal. Obviously, finding someone still alive supersedes the need for deliberate evidence gathering and preservation, but in the end, those activities can hinder, or possibly even create, a situation where the forensic engineers can only narrow the potential causes down to two or three “most likely” scenarios.

This is common when large fires burn a structure and the local fire department calls in a demolition contractor to raze the site. In these cases, the property insurer pays for the total loss without the ability to subrogate against any other party that might have been responsible for causing the fire. This will be frustrating for the family members and general public that want to have a singular point-of-blame, but it might also result in various insurers paying out on behalf of their clients even when they didn’t do anything wrong.

The family members, general public, public officials and others will wait for the NIST report to be published and the documents that come out as part of the trial in March 2023. Meanwhile, forensic engineers and insurance adjusters work fervently to determine the root cause, apportioned liability and applicable policies to be able to close this claim file.

Timothy D. Christ (timothydavid.christ@gmail.com) is a well-known thought leader and speaker in the insurance industry, with over 20 years of experience in forensic engineering and claims investigations, including a published book on these topics. Much of his consulting work centers on the future of claims and the impacts of technology.

Related:

 

 

Recommended Stories