Common Types of Allegations
Defective workmanship claims tend to fall into recognizable groups:
- Installation contrary to requirements. Work that does not follow the drawings, specifications or manufacturer instructions.
- Poor execution. Work installed with gaps, misalignment, uneven surfaces or loose components.
- Missing components. Blocking, fasteners, flashings, sealants or hardware that should be present and are not.
- Wrong sequence. Work covered or finished before the underlying work was ready.
- Incomplete scope. Items never installed or never finished.
- Damage during construction. Finished work damaged by later trades and not repaired.
Each type calls for different evidence, and many claims mix several of them.
Testing Each Claim Item
Paul works through the claim one item at a time. For each item he asks:
- What is alleged?The condition as described by the claimant, with location.
- What was required?The governing contract, specification, product instruction or adopted code provision.
- What is observed?The condition found at inspection, photographed and located.
- Does it depart from the requirement?And if so, is the departure significant to function, durability, appearance or compliance?
- What else could explain it?Movement, later damage, maintenance, owner changes or product failure.
The result is a claim matrix that counsel can use to evaluate, negotiate and present the claim.
Claim Documentation That Holds Up
Good documentation answers the questions an opposing expert will ask. Paul's claim documentation typically includes the claim item and its location, the requirement, the observed condition, photographs keyed to the item, his opinion on whether the item is a defect, and where requested the corrective scope and cost. Items he could not verify, for example because they were already repaired or concealed, are identified as such rather than assumed.
Owners, Contractors and Insurers
For owners, the claim matrix shows which items are supported and worth pursuing. For contractors and subcontractors, it identifies items that are not defects or have another cause, and narrows the dispute to the items that matter. For insurers, it separates defective workmanship from resulting damage and other causes, which often decides coverage questions handled by counsel. The same method serves each of them.
Defect Versus Ordinary Wear
One of the most frequent questions in a defect claim is whether a condition reflects defective work or ordinary wear. Wear typically appears gradually, follows patterns of use and shows up in high-traffic or high-exposure areas. Defective work often appears early, repeats where the same installer did the same work, and is tied to an installation detail. Paul looks at timing, pattern and installation details together before drawing that line. Poor construction workmanship discusses the observable signs in more detail.