Surfside Condo Claims Engineer Failed to Warn Residents - Lawsuit Analysis Part 5 of 5
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- Lawsuit Analysis Part 5 - In this video we conclude our initial review of the class-action lawsuit filed by the residents and estates against multiple parties by looking at their claims against the Engineer and the Association's attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙏𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙎𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 showcases Josh Porter’s expert analysis of the tragic Surfside condominium collapse. Josh’s ability to explain complicated material in a way understandable to anyone has created a high demand for his instruction. You can get it right here for free, at your leisure.
• Champlain Towers South
The 𝙊𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 offers viewers a deep dive into Josh Porter's decades of experience in the construction industry.
• On Point
In the 𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙅𝙤𝙗 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 we take you out of the studio to where the real action happens, the job site.
• On the Job
The 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 contains interviews with industry professionals discussing everything related to condominiums, construction, and engineering.
• One on One
Building Integrity Supports Crossroads Hope Academy. To Donate to Crossroads Hope Academy, please use the following link:
www.crossroadspg.org/donate
To see more videos about Crossroads and the amazing work they are doing, please watch the following playlist: • Crossroads Hope Academy
#BuildingIntegrity #SurfsideCollapse
Disclaimer: Nothing contained within this video should be construed as legal advice. Building Integrity makes no claims of its own regarding the guilt or innocence or liability otherwise of any legal entities mentioned in any of their videos. These videos are made for news/informational and educational purposes only.
Taught engineering ethics at UVA for 35 years. Retired. would have given my eye teeth to be able to show these videos to my students and discuss the implications
What did you use??
@@mangos2888 Old Testament?
Challenger
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
@@Riogrande1964 The worst part is that some of the root causes still and always will exist. Management pressure is real, and had the engineers given a "no go", they would likely have been fired or relegated to a different position within a year. I'm sure several of them had families, so the question is "Do I make my house payment, or do I play it safe?" Especially when it's not as large of a safety critical or time sensitive decision as Challenger was.
The boss can be in your office every day asking if those numbers say what he wants them to say... Good luck proving that not going along with it was why you were fired in a state like Florida too. Even if you were, you will then also have to prove that the boss was asking someone to lie in a way that's illegal.
Engineering ethics is far less hypothetical than people realize.
Josh……once again you have taken us step by step, layer by layer through this process. As a lay person, I have understood most all of it. Thank you. You excel as a teacher and engineer.
He really does doesn’t he? Excellent teacher. I have learned so much from his videos. I might be on the other side of the Atlantic but he makes everything so clear that even when terminology is different I understand it.
Lawyer by lawyer.
The discussion of Authority vs Responsability was really enlightening. We just had a 32 stories building evacuated last month in the Paris suburbs because it was deemed unsafe due to corrosion of steel elements. The government official with the authority said he was not going to risk the lives of so many people and of course some homeowners tried to fight it in court. I wonder if he took into account the Surfside disaster.
edit: sorry about the war below. My goal was not to start a discussion on government overreach nor to take a dig at the homeowners, some of whom lived for decades in the building and had no other assets.
That’s interesting. Brave decision by the official. Imagine trying to argue to stay! I wonder what will happen to it now.
@@suewilkinson910 I'm sure that here in the US that people would say that the government overstepped their bounds but would immediately blame the government if something bad actually happened.
@@michaelmathews295 why should they be able to force you out of your home with law enforcement? Declare it's unsafe, sure. Make sure everybody living in the building knows, definitely. I don't see where forcing anybody to do anything except fix the building comes into the picture here? You wanna live there, be my guest. The government should not be in the business of saving you from self-inflicted harm.
@@tissuepaper9962 You should look up why every country in the world has a government. Seems you forgot their purpose…
@@mangos2888 "self-inflicted", did you miss that part? The purpose of government is to protect your rights, not your life.
my oppinion of the report was that Moribito stated the building will become unsafe if work was not done and then 2 years passed and the building collapsed.
KO: Moribito never used the word "unsafe" in his summary report.
@@KB4QAA he had no obligation to state the building was becoming “unsafe”, yet he clearly telegraphed that there were serious accelerating problems.
@@reinelantz3304 As a licensed professional structural engineer he has a legal obligation to inform clients if a building is unsafe or is likely to become unsafe, within the limits of his experience and knowledge of a building. Now, that doesn't mean he is required to do testing and analysis outside the scope of contracted work. E.g. He is contracted to evaluate an sidewalk wheel chair ramps, does not mean he has to inspect the building, take core samples and do computer stress analysis. But if he walks into a building and notices groaning, fallen beams and spreading cracks, he IS obligated to notify the client. ;)
Trouble is, Morabita failed to be explicit, forgetting that its audience was made of non-engineers. Simply enumerating the structures numerous deficiencies means nothing, because most non-engineers cannot read that and know what you're talking about. Nowhere in that report does it state that the building is unsafe, nor does it state when the building will become unsafe if the repairs are not done. It merely says that these repairs need to be done in a "timely fashion". What does "timely" mean? 3 weeks? 3 months? 3 years? This is why, no doubt, Morabito just settled for $83 Million, though the terms of the settlement are confidential.
This is one of those channels where I always click the like button during the intro because I know it's going to be good
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
I hate to say it, but this really reeks as a classic case of "scapegoat the vendor for your own failures." < something I see constantly as a consultant.
Thank you for exposing how complicated this can be. I think we all assume that everyone has good faith and the same motivation for safety. You've shown how difficult it can be to serve as a board member and as an engineer.
First rule of lawsuits: Sue people with money/insurance.
It will be interesting to see what case history the lawyers cite in their briefs.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
As a retired P.E., I have to say this highlights an interesting Catch-22. It is nearly impossible to predict with any level of certainty that a structure will collapse at a certain point in the future. So, certifying that a building is either safe or unsafe is virtually impossible. And about the third time that a consulting engineer or engineering firm condemns a building, will be the last time as nobody will ever hire them again, particularly if they condemn buildings that aren’t immediately demolished and end up standing vacant for the next 20 years and don’t spontaneously collapse.
How about all those buildings damaged in fires, explosions, truck ran into them, sinkhole, what-have-you, where some engineer(s) look at it and declare if it's still safe or not? Happens all the time, and condemnation also happens all the time. Why is this case different?
@@KaiHenningsen Much of the damage here was well hidden.
I would say being hired less often is better than being responsible for needless deaths and having your reputation dragged through the mud.
@@johng4093 And you missed the point entirely. Congratulations!
Here's what I get from watching this excellent series of videos:
-Do NOT go to Engineering School.
-Go to Law School.
🤣 🤣 🤣
Traurig aber wahr...
Is it negligent to not forsee that the building would collapse when in the US fully completed buildings rarely collapse? Did this engineering firm get unlucky in that they were chosen to do the inspections when every other engineering firm would have done the same thing?
Pretty much the way I view it - if 99.9% of the time you can get away it, everyone will do it. They were the unlucky one who caught the 0.1%.
This mentality of playing the statistics is true to all fields and industries.
"fully completed buildings rarely collapse" As of now. Josh mentioned that more and more buildings will be demolished as they of the same construction and are now reaching the same age as Champlain Towers.
That's going to be one of the magic questions. What exactly did they see in their inspections. And did they interpret what they found to the standards of professional engineering? What conclusion would another engineer reach when looking at the same evidence they had (and not the 20/20 hindsight of a pile of rubble)? It's going to be subjective to some extent. And they will be fighting an uphill battle since they were the last engineers to officially look at the building, and the building did collapse absent any apparent alarm from them.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
@@andrewtaylor940 Also, was the engineering firm even contracted to attest to the building safety? Or were they just contracted to provide a list of "important thing to repair *before* the re-certification starts"?
In that case, the owners could deal with the budget and hire contractors without having to evacuate the residents and hire a company for a 24/7 emergency repair while the city official is standing behind them with a stop watch and a demolition crane. 40 years or not, the moment an engineering firm submits a report that "the building is unsafe", the clock starts ticking. In my opinion, the report is very carefully worded to avoid exactly that scenario.
I'm so glad that you're still keeping on top of this. These sort of accidents are so easy to forget about...
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
I think Morabito will argue that A: The building wasn't structurally unsound at the time of the 2018 report but would be if repairs weren't made in a timely fashion, and B: The report was preliminary to the 40 year certification process and merely intended to report to the condo association what measures they would need to take in order to successfully pass the certification, so any follow-up to the report rested in the hands of the condo association to make sure that it didn't reach the point that the building became structurally unsound.
Profitable so go to many
For much of the video, I was wondering what Morabito had been contracted to do. If they were contracted to do the 40 year recertification (early), then it seems strange that there was no opinion either way whether the structure was sound (enough) for recertification. However, if they were contracted to determine what needed to be done to pass recertification, then your suggestion can make sense.
@BrandiLynn ok then that would beg
Engineers are trained to use passive voice and present an air of professionalism when we write reports.
This trend makes for clarity when fellow professionals read our work, but it doesn't always communicate a sense of urgency to clients who are not engineers.
Especially when said clients may have their own motivations to delay or defer acting upon the recommendations in a report.
I remember reading the excerpts from the summary of Morabito's report and thinking that he was trying to diplomatically tell the board that they needed to get off the dime and create and execute a plan to implement the needed repairs... and that the board had perhaps deliberately decided to not respond to the urgency because in part the language was not dramatic.
I'm not sure how we overcome the cultural differences in perception, but ever since Kansas City, I've been aware that the engineer of record can get screwed over when there is a tragedy.
When there's liability and risks, you need to CYA.
I feel like consultants writing a report of their findings is the same as a doctor interpreting test results and then telling you what those results mean.
Another field that uses “passive voice” and “presents an air of professionalism” in reports is psychiatry/psychology. When reading my reports after testing it was clear medical professionals/mental health professionals would understand the findings, but for me it was like reading unabridged English. Yeah I understood the findings eventually, but it took multiple reads and dictionary searches before i did. However, one amazing thing they provided at the beginning was a summary of the findings, clearly stating what was found, evidence, what it meant individually, and what it meant looking at the “big picture”. I feel like this sort of summary should be required in all fields where a report/analysis may not be fully understood by a layperson.
That was the reaction I had reading the original report. Another engineer or similar professional would have recognized the significance of the reported findings but a layman would have completely glossed over those warnings.
Isn't that a hesitancy to commit to an assessment? I think if Morabito had said: "The building is structurally unsafe and needs immediate repairs/shoring to prevent eventual collapse." then the course of action would have been clear. But in this sue-happy environment everybody tries to be as slick as possible. Morabito could have been accused of overdramatizing. Difficult to prove they were right if the building had kept standing due to repairs being undertaken in a timely (aka now/then) manner.
Yes, I've been thinking of the KC lawsuit, where the constructor didn't build according to the drawings, and the engineering company got blamed for the failure. IIRR, the constructor didn't even issue a request for a design change.
I don't think Morabito recognized the potential for disaster and I don't think they're guilty of anything because they didn't. I doubt that any company that does engineering surveys of old buildings would have recognized how seriously flawed the building construction was. If Morabito had been tasked with doing a thorough review of the engineering of the building including a complete review of every engineering decision, every revision to the building, every structural element to determine that it was in compliance with the engineering drawings and a thorough review of every structural element in the building to determine its current condition then Morabito might bear some responsibility for the disaster. They were not paid to do anything nearly this comprehensive. Reasonably IMO since going into a survey like this is an assumption that the engineering and construction of the building were roughly adequate.
Yeah, let’s sue the the engineering firm that said “Your building is screwed”🙄🙄
If I were on the jury I would find that Morabito told them explicitly the building was in trouble and that failing to LISTEN to Morabito was the primary factor in the building’s failure.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
Trouble is, the Surfside Building Inspector, AFTER hearing that report delivered at the owners' meeting at which it was delivered, and at which he was present, declared the building safe and good. No way were the owners going to vote to approve the $9 Million special (in 2018) assessment that was needed to do the repairs, after hearing that. No money, no repairs. I have served on two condo boards and can tell you how difficult it is to approve a special. This is why I think the most culpability lies with the Surfside building inspector, even though Meribeto Engineering bears some blame for failing to convey the urgency to the owners. The Board's hands were tied, and I only hold them responsible for being too gutless to raise the monthly assessments, and for spending money on frippery such as redecorating the lobby. The concrete problems in that building began in the 90s, and ongoing repair and maintenance should have been budgeted in.
The report listed all the dangerous conditions, and then in the end, it said it is fine regardless. That was a confusing report, and a good reason to be sued.
But regardless, it was explained earlier how these lawsuits are working. They are suing everybody who is even remotely related, and the court's job is to assign the blame. They sue the firm because they are a party of interest, and the lawsuit WILL determine if they are at fault or not. That's the point of the lawsuit. We can't tell if they are innocent or not, if they are not part of the lawsuit.
@@chicagonorthcoast I wouldn't call them gutless for not approving the increase in fees. I've attended hoa meetings. Imagine having to tell your neighbor "sorry but you need to come up with $5000 in three months for condo repairs". Just sayin!
@@blackdirkdiggler in situations like this, the board needs the situation spelled out clearly by their consultant so that owners can’t “if, and, or but” their way out of it. The report needs to communicate the level of severity in stark terms, not in wishy washy “please like me” language.
I find it ironic and sad that they’re suing everyone but it ultimately came down to the Condo Board refusing to spend money on necessary repairs.
In regards to why Moribito hadn't started shoring up the garage, the management had requested and was waiting on permit approval from the City of Surfside to relocate parking.
Shows how convoluted these 'accident' chains can be. See "Swiss Cheese" models etc.
@@philipoakley5498 It does feel like a calamity of errors by several responsible parties.
@@sophiahughes4665 Very much part of the "Normal Accidents" (Perrow) and others that study the "Human Error" (Reason) attributions. e.g. Rasmussen, Hollnagel, etc.
The same sudden 'many dead' building incidents also include Fires, with similar backstories. Then there are all the Oil/Gas/Petro-chem incidents.
The UK's Grenfell disaster fall out continues.
@@philipoakley5498 When you depend on statistics to save you,
you must assume assumption of the risk when the dice roll against you.
Black swans cannot exist in some assesments
@@whazzat8015 Such (measurements & statistics) is science, as used in assessments.
The laws on swans has many peculiarities ;-)
I recently began following Building Integrity’s CZcams channel. I have no engineering background but have always been interested in the structural side of engineering. Josh Porter’s investigative and in depth detailed analysis, background research and schematics of both the Millenium Towers and the southern Florida condo collapse combined with his easy to understand lectures is absolutely phenomenal. His CZcams channel has become a personal addiction. Thank you Mr Josh Porter for all of the effort that you put into developing your videos. They are informative, educational and even entertaining.
Who is surprised that they’re pointing fingers of blame? The Board wants to them to shoulder the blame. Sounds like some owners were VERY concerned about the concrete spalling cracking etc. and others didn’t want to pay for costly repairs.
It always has to do with money, always. People will cry about needing work done, they get the price and cry they don’t have the money but still want the work done. I’m dealing with a moral dilemma with an old house and two couples living in this place, no working bathroom, drainage fell apart and no septic system. I called a building code guy I know and told him, they do have a bathroom in another house 100’ away where the landlord lives. Structure is solid, built in the 1800’s cape style, the renters don’t have much money and live an hour away from me. What to do, what to do
@@geneticdisorder1900 well I’ve seen people trying to live in squalid conditions too, no heat no running water it’s not healthy but in this case it’s a high rise and people just don’t want to pay for someone’s 40 year old mistakes that seemingly lead to this horrific event. Cuba is where this sort of thing happens on the regular, all those old high rise buildings collapsing due to disrepair. It SHOULDN’T be happening in USA. The engineering for the construction was clearly substandard and just under 40 years a building can and did come down.
@@islandbirdw I worked on two condo buildings back to back in 84, both were right on a beach next to the ocean, two more years they will have to deal with certification, wish I could get in to both and see how they have held up. Both were lift slabs, the second one had areas where cement fell apart exposing the tension cables and contractor had to reform cement in those spots. I watched a worker use a bic lighter to burn out foam, instead of chipping it out like he was supposed to.
I worked for the plumbing contractor, so I was all through the second building .
Again, thanks for showing the thorny issues involved in engineering consultancy and safety-grade work. How often do you encounter conditions where it's immediately clear that you need to take action beyond reporting the condition to the client or regulator? We use conservative assessment and decision-making to compensate for engineering uncertainty. How much of that is inadequate only when considered in hindsight?
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
Post shoring seems to have been called for to facilitate the work that was proposed on the pool deck...but that does not necessarily imply the building was in an emergent unsafe condition prior to commencing work. I appreciate this analysis video, but in my opinion there are too many assumptions being made. The proposed work was months away from being done. Furthermore, Morabito did warn the building in the 2018 elective report of serious issues that required immediate attention. Didn't the city also receive the 2018 report? What about the city inspector -- Ross Prieto? -- who was at the CTS association meeting and downplayed the Morabito report and even had the gall to tell them, "Your building is safe"....?
This is what I've gathered: Morabito identified the problems, CTS and the city ignored them, and tragedy ultimately resulted. Quite simply nobody realized -- or wanted to realize -- how grave the situation really was. I pray the families have found comfort from this unbelievable loss.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
I love your videos on CTS. When I saw the one on the leaning tower of San Francisco I was worried that the CTS videos might get neglected. Thank you for this reassuring confirmation that CTS continues to get an in-depth treatment.
BETTER BE SAFE THEN SORRY NOW THEY SORRY MORE THEN THEY WHERE SAFE
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
@@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199 I would love to join you, but I do not use Facebook. If you ever post material elsewhere let me know.
Exponential is a very scary word. It could (and in this case seems to have) meant that there will be very little time between onset and failure. And while the engineer mentioned that, the board didn't seem to react.
You'd be surprised how many people don't understand the concept of exponential growth.
On second thought, after COVID, maybe you won't be surprised.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
People see what they want to see. Exponential seems too abstract for layman's terms. Now, I don't, know where that vocabulary stands in legal terms but I can see how the term might not be clear enough for a condo board (Laymen right?). Perhaps they needed a graph, 1 equals unsafe, 0 equals safe. Building state: 0 (unsafe). What is clear enough or layman's terms might need to be defined by law.
The Board tried, but it needed the approval of a "super majority" or 2/3 of the owners to vote to approve the special needed to effect the repairs. Well, there' s no way they'd win approval of a $9 Million special assessment after the Surfside building inspector, who was at the meeting at which that report was delivered, stood before them and declared the building safe and good.
@@DrgnTmrSirGawain, Yes, the condo Board is made up of owners who work on a volunteer basis. I'm on a condo board myself. We are categorically non-experts and we are unpaid volunteers who rely upon our professional management firm, our citys building department, and our contractors for expert advice.
I can’t tell you how thankful I am that you are doing these videos. You are such an amazing person.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you u
The first positive thing that I heard about the board: They started the work for the 40 year recertification at least 2.5 years before that recertification was due. However, that does show that they suspected that they had significant problems that would take time (more than 150 days) to fix.
The Board knew. The pool deck had to be repaired at least three times.
And that's why the 2018 report is so carefully worded. You don't want to alert the government that evacuation and possibly demolition is required. Pretty sure that a notice of an unsafe building would also trigger the 150 day period, no matter if the 40 years are up or not.
My layman's sense brings two associated points to mind. Firstly, an overall system to do with engineering and building and regulation and financing and politics, is responsible for the collapse. So any litigious focus on one party in that systemic activity, is compromised as to what it can fairly achieve. Secondly, the law regarding certification not having triggered itself, appears to me to dilute the responsibilities of the engineer to simply supplying a factual report on the building and possible rectifications; unless the Association explictly asked in contract for a judgement as to safety. It the 40 year triggering had been triggered after that report, then the engineer could have added certification required judgement as to safety.
My sense is, that: at the time of the report, the culture surrounding these things, did not much extend to anticipating the collapse we now know did happen. Post this collapse, presumably everything changes; we now know that buildings of this type erected 40 years ago, are possibly generically prone to potential collapse (for a host of reasons BI has so clearly spoken to).
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
This certification is just more "public safety".
The city doesn't garanty that a building stays 40 years.
A building owner must secrure the structual integrity at all times. The city tests the owner.
It is like an a speed limit.
YOU are responsible for your speed. The police controll this from time to time.
But by no means is it the police's fault that you exceeded the speed limit because the police didn't check you often enough.
Sounds similar to the finger pointing after the I35W collapse. The Engineering firm told them there were problems, but the state seemed to want a less critical second opinion.
The thing that keeps getting to me is, as you mentioned, how the suit seems to say both “the report showed it was unsafe” versus “they did not tell us it was unsafe”. It seems very much like a claim that the engineer gave them a connect-the-dots, but they were obligated to complete it before passing it to the client. As a non-PE I have to defer to yours and others’ expertise and experience as to where this responsibility lies-no matter what, it is certainly messy.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. 🥰
The town and it's building department, whose head assured the condo board that their building was fine, are the obvious deep pockets. The town can pay almost endless judgements because they can extract it from the property owners in the town. Though the property owners won't like this.
I think the building department shares a large portion of blame. But you are right in that it will be the taxpayers who would end up paying for the mistakes of others.
The Town of Surfside was not sued yet, but it can be added to the lawsuit at any time.
In the age of lying , Josh is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your professionalism. Lying is a sin.
In my experience in another industry, you set the recertification period based on how badly you think it could deteriorate in that time. That is to say, you don't set it to 40 years if you think buildings are going to start falling down in 40 years time. So clearly this building was deteriorating a lot faster than was expected. ISTR that Morobito even mentioned in their report that it was deteriorating 'exponentially' and repairs must be made.
Which is why we have such a lot of finger-pointing. Did next door construction accelerate deterioration? Did Morobito expect the nearly 3 year delay in repairs caused by the association dragging their feet> Did Morobito not use 'stronger' language to emphasis their concerns? Seems like a lot of blame to pass around.
I agree, there is lots of blame. I think there will be lots of settlement money.
That too bad that sigh in society
@@lindap.p.1337 - i dont think there should be settlement money from Morobito, if they didnt like the opinion they could have also called in a second opinion
I think part of the problem is that after the Morabito report was given to the condo board, they had the inspector from the Town of Surfside tell them "your building is in very good shape." Since they didn't want a huge special assessment to do the repairs anyway, they had someone tell them what they wanted to hear, and just went with it. "Hey, this is bad, you should fix it ASAP" versus "Eh, it'll be fine until it's 40 year recert when you have to fix the stuff anyway."
@@jenniparker1 That is an interesting point, the city official told them the building was safe. That might make Surfside legally vulnerable.
The problem is that the building was not 40 years old so none of the legal remedies in the building code, like evacuating the building, did not exist for the engineer as that authority does not become active until the building has to be recertified.
So you don't report a potential disaster until the 40th birthday? Clearly that's not smart.
Actually as soon as an never is retaine to examin a building and finds a serious life threatening defect he can order evacuation. The goverment people can act anytime and do not have to wait for the 40 year mark
This. All of this.
Have you read your own comment? You make no sense and your backwards logic is frightening. Would you drive a car with no brakes just because you have no report to say they don't work?
You'd be surprised, automotive repair is in my ballpark and YES even mothers with CHILDREN in their cars will say NO to what's clearly a brake safety issue, in my 40 plus years I've had to pay to have customers cars towed to either their home, or to a shop of their choice (one case a lady came in for tires, when we took the wheels off both front vented rotors had actually shown the actual vented impressions!!! And on both the others the pads were down to the backing plate (so no pads) one did tell me that they use to make a squealing noise BUT eventually it stopped (no shit Sherlock) that's because you ignored the warning clip till it was gone.
If it is for just the 40 year, than in my mind their wasn't a reasonable expectation of a safe or unsafe ruling. That would be something that would have been in the contract. If I was sitting on a jury for this I would think the words about the problem(s) spreading exponentially is a clear enough warning to stop worrying about the lobby and start on the issues.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
I'm not an engineer or an architect, or even an American, but I find your videos completely enthralling. Thank you.
Of the various parties that share some responsibility for this disaster Morabito seems among the least responsible to me, if they belong on the list at all. I guess the roofers, who have been sued as well, might be even less responsible but Morabito is being screwed by this process IMO. We bought an old building with a huge variety of problems, almost none of which were pointed out by the inspector when we bought the building. We didn't hold the building inspector responsible for this. He did an inspection that was in keeping with the standards of his profession for a pre-sale inspection. He didn't claim that he was going to do a detailed survey to itemize all the potential problems of an old building. Similarly and even more clearly in this case the engineering company didn't contract to do a detailed review of all the structural elements of the design. They were contracted to look for deterioration of a structure that should be fixed. They did that. It is more by happenstance that what they found would probably have prevented the disaster. They and nobody else anticipated the construction and design errors that were the primary cause of this disaster.
ETA: Although, with 20/20 hindsight almost the first thing I noticed in the rubble was how thin the columns appeared to be that were supporting the garage roof. I think that might have made a structural engineer curious about that aspect of the design which maybe could have led to some analysis on that aspect of the design. But I suspect if every time a structural engineer noticed something in a design that wasn't quite what he expected and he investigated it nobody could afford a inspection by a structural engineer.
Well said.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
The trouble with this is did they put those designs in the report because it was unsafe or because they were advising "these are the things that will be required before it becomes unsafe".
In the UK we do this often, a sites construction or services may not be unsafe yet but are in deterioration so methods of repair or replacement are put forward before it gets to the point of being unsafe. This allows the relevant parties to decide on a course of action acceptable to their budget and goals in good time. This is very much how this engineer report came across, CTS wasn't unsafe - yet, but will become unsafe hence the use of "exponentially".
There in lies the problem though, if it's Unsafe you can evacuate but if it's not yet Unsafe you can't. So do you say it's unsafe while it isn't and get sued, or do you wait until it is unsafe and hope to save lives. With the band-aid attitude of the association it seems either course of action would have been delayed and ended in tragedy.
I don’t believe any engineer would have known that bldg was coming down when it did.
I would bet the D&O insurance underwriter is clenching about now. Board membership has responsibilities, it's budget isn't an interior decorating slush fund over building safety.
What did they expect? The engineer go banging door to door yelling the building is falling like he is Paul Revere?
CS: Yes, if the building was an imminent danger to life.
No they expected them to use the words Unsafe in their report.
@@monsternside1509 Yes, because the "Association" didnt know how much mony they save during long years or neglection, they needed a guy to tell them how much they'd saved.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
@11:40 Maybe that is why buildings in Las Vegas are demolished from time to time. Another superb analysis Josh! Thank you!
Josh if I’m not mistaken the authorities did evacuate 87 Park and the hotel across the street. I’ll see if I can dig up the Morabito contract if it’s in the lawyers discovery. Right now the Surfside Mayor has decided he won’t support the added expense of Allen Kilshiemer finishing his report of why it collapsed and wants to wash his hands of any transparency. Please reach out to Because Surfside as he has more information on this. Once again excellent analysis of the lawsuit.
I will look into it. Thanks!
It's always someone else's fault, it can't possibly be the residents fault for not spending the money to repair a shoddily built structure even after being warned 2 years before .
You're right. There's a lot of finger pointing going on. Everyone involved wants to blame others for this terrible accident. In reality, there's more than enough guilt for everyone involved but the condo owners who were insisting that these repairs be made.
You have to realize most residents who aren't part of the HOA were largely kept in the dark as to the severity of the problem. If they knew they would be crushed dead in their sleep, they would have pushed for repairs.
The reason most of the residents weren't pushing for repairs is that they *were not made aware* of the severity of the problem. The board of the condo association was dragging their feet for years, and didn't start getting replaced with people who GAF until it was too late. The vast majority of residents had no power in this situation.
I do think 87 Collins is partially liable. His video did a great job explaining why.
But the condo board was willing to spend the money to make repairs. They secured the financing. Bank approved a loan for $15 million. Also, special assessments for this work had been paid by owners.
I live a few blocks of the collapse and after the first week the entire surrounding neighborhoods suffered greatly. mixed with the humidity and high heat, the bodies of those 100 stunk so bad whenever the winds blew.the smells of decaying human beings will drive you insane
I still wonder, would the building had been able to withstand the repairs even if started in 2018? or would they have caused the building to collapse 3 years earlier ?
This series is an incredible public service and I thank you.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming u
Your channel is consistently excellent at evaluating and analyzing the Surfside tragedy, even for lay folks such as myself. Have seen the pretty much everything on CZcams concerning this issues and yours really is pretty much the only one worth watching. Thank you.
Awesome video, you cut right thru and get to the heart of the matter. Enjoy these video's very much.
If Moribito had blown the whistle and ordered an evacuation, they would have faced pushback with rants, curses and obscene gestures. This will get worse if the lawsuit is successful. Everytime an inspector sees a crack in the concrete he'll order an evacuation.
I gotta admit James as a condo owner myself I really hope your not a building inspector and also hope this attitude isn't pervasive amongst inspectors.
@@peters9401 not sure which way you mean should an engineer be ultra cautious or more reasonable. If the former then many people will be made homeless unnecessarily. The latter people die.
@@peters9401 but a lot fewer will be inconvenienced
This incident has already seriously affected to resale value of any condo in the United States, the longer this goes on the worst it will get until eventually some condos you won't even be able to give away.
@@jeffbybee5207 Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it sounds like James is suggesting inspectors should look the other way when they find serious structural issues in a building for fear of being confronted with "rants, curses and obscene gestures. That to me just sounds wildly unprofessional at best…criminal at worst.
Great presentation balancing out the divergent issues at hand. Thank you.
It's interesting and reassuring to see the engineers that performed the building inspection were on the right track recommending the drop panels to head off the potential punch through. In hindsight is easy to say evacuate the structure pending repairs but a drastic requirement of that type usually must be green lighted by top management. Engineers are often overruled in these circumstances, the Morton Thiokol space shuttle explosion is a shocking example of this.
I like outer space stations- I hope they are safe enough because I want to stay in one and have it not implode
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
An evacuation order doesn't have to be greenllighted by the management of the building if the local building department orders it. A report that declares the building unsafe should be forwarded to the city's building dept, and its language should state that the building is unsafe in language even a non-engineer condo board member like me can understand.
Great presentation of some seriously convoluted technical issues. Another perspective: I spent 20 years as a concrete restoration engineer in SE Florida. I had numerous contentious meetings with Boards and residents, was accused of taking kickbacks, was fired (thankfully) from several projects, had to hire police to keep order at meetings, had to sue residents for blocking work, even had an architect state during my presentation that "Building Department is only advisory, thay have no power". Much easier to get approval for a pool or lobby makeover than for concrete work.
Thanks for keeping this event on the front burner!
The passion you have for your work and your field of expertise is obvious, and makes your channel fascinating, even for the interested but entirely uneducated (in engineering) lay person like myself. I have family who live very near to the town of Surfside, so your analyses of the CTS collapse and all of its ramifications are of special interest to me.
Thanks Josh for an excellent analysis and commentary - the best on CZcams, I would say. The unique quality of your presentations on CTS is that they talk clearly to anyone with an interest in multi-occupancy building maintenance and management - no matter whether they are in the US, or any other country that operates under the rule of law.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
Very interesting video. I enjoy getting into the nitty gritty of this event. Thanks so much.
I knew very little about the ethics of construction, but hats off to u for such comprehensive, & highly informative tutorials. U have my respect. Thank u. Big lessons learnt in this tragedy that ripped so many families apart. U have also shown utmost care & empathy in ur approach & i have no doubt that u have made a valuable contribution in some way to the healing process. ♡♡
Thanks for this latest update, Josh!
You mentioned the possibility of shoring up weak structures before repairs can be made. That strikes me as a way for an engineer to make clear that a situation is serious and to force action onto a building's owner or a condo board that it delaying action. Insisting on shoring deals immediately with a situation where an engineer has responsibilities but not authority. It is a lot easier to demand shoring that might cost $100,000 than it is to demand expedited repairs that might cost $5 million. And once that ugly shoring is in place, the owners are going to be more willing to complete the needed repairs.
Or use it as an excuse to wait.
Thank you for your EXCELLENT research and clear presentations.
Great video, Josh. Thanks for sharing!
I love these videos. Please keep them coming. They are absolutely Fascinating. Your explanations are very easily understandable by a layman such as myself. You are an excellent teacher.
Thank you for another illuminations video. You have one of the best educational shows going.
Caught this in time before heading to work.....thank you! As soon as I heard the into music play, I ran to my phone! Thank you for this AMAZING & EDUCATIONAL content!
Great as always! Thanks!
great content! Thank you for educating us.
Wow how complex. Thank you for the information. Have a great day.
Thank you for putting these together, I really had no clue I’d find them so interesting.
Well done once again, thank you.
Thanks again for this informative video. Very interesting.
Thx again Josh. Stays fascinating.
This is made very interesting by the clarity of your explanation. Thank you.
These are fascinating, thanks!
Very informative. Looking forward to seeing the next video.
First responders actually did evacuate some or at least one nearby building.
Yep. I saw body cam footage of it on another channel
Both neighboring buildings, north and south (the beach was in the east, and a tennis court in the west) were evacuated. The Solara hotel and the 87 Park Condo.
Wow! Another excellent video which illustrates Josh’s expertise in matters such as this. He should be at the top of the list for expert witness testimony.
Once again you’ve made it all so understandable. Some of the terminology used is different to that in the U.K., and my love and understanding is for very old buildings and how to conserve them, but I still understand because you explain it so well.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.
You say that this is part 5 of 5 of the series. i would like to explicitly request that you continue coverage of the CTS collapse, Including lawsuit conclusion.
Your videos are so clear and informative! I am not in the building industry, but am really interested in how this tragedy came to happen. I feel I have an improved understanding of this because of your explanations.
Great coverage and analysis. Thanks for all this information.
thanks for all you do and sharing your knowledge, Ive learned so much already ))
Thanks for another great video! 😁
Great job as usual Josh!
Excellent as always!
The commentary at the closing was spot on.
Love you channel mate keep up the good work👍👍👍
Excellent, even handed analysis. Keep it up.
I get so happy when I'm notified that Building Integrity has uploaded a new video. Josh, the way you explain every element of the lawsuit is brilliant. Lawyer and lawsuit speak can be tremendously hard to understand. Seems like all parties involved did a horrible job of realizing what the building needed and who was responsible for doing it. Thank you Josh for keeping us current on the Champlain Towers.
Watching this from China
Really enjoy the explanation and logistics
Thanks for making this
I don't know, Josh. There were so many factors that brought this building down on the day it did, it would have been hard for any one individual or group to have seen it all and put all the pieces together. The engineers knew that the building suffered from severe water damage and erosion that needed to be fixed with urgency. But did they know that the fools next door had exceeded vibration codes while hammering things into the ground right up against the pool wall? Did they know that the concrete would shrink so much at 1:22 am on June 24 that it would rip the garage right out of the wall? I'm not saying that people didn't make mistakes. They did. big ones. People lost their lives and homes. Someone needs to pay and laws need to change. Big lawsuits and insurance will take care of that.. But what I'm really asking is how much information do you need to shut a building down?
Ever heard of the swiss cheese model used in aviation? A chain of errors line up (support each other) which will eventually lead to the accident happening. You look at many slices of swiss cheese which let you look right through if all the holes of different slices line up.
Another saying is: SSSS, Safety slips in small steps. So one, seen as minor, bad decision after the other is made which creates the catastrophic situation. Just like one hole is not enough. But line up enough holes and kawoom!
@@user-sm3xq5ob5d You are right. I have heard of swiss cheese model and its very relevant here. We don't know what was said between the engineering firm and the condo board after the assessment was completed. But I can just see the response of the Surfside residents if the engineer had told them they needed to do the repairs today because the temperature was going to fall over night .. Only kidding of course. I'm not against holding people accountable. They should be. I just think that when pointing fingers in this case, you'll need a lot of hands.
@@kathleenwilliam The sorry part is when the individual contribution, the size of the hole, is so small, that in the end nobody gets held accountable. Like
- Morabito not drastically saying the building needs immediate repairs
- HOA not ensuring an immediate repair
- Members not agreeing to large outlays for repairs
- Bad design for park deck to building connection
- Surfside authorities not looking over plans
- etc.
@@user-sm3xq5ob5d I live in a condo that is old and needs repairs. The board does its best to communicate to homeowners about problems that need attention and to find necessary funding, but sometimes people don't want to hear about the problems. In their own minds they fantasize that someone is building a mountain out of a molehill; that surely they have a few more years.
@@kathleenwilliam That is the problem with limited intelligence. It does not notice its limitations. A Catch-22! We see that all over with the covid stances. People who are not able to understand science make decisions only because they can read the words. But at the same time have no clue how to compute the data given.
Love what you do-thanks!
Great analysis, as always. The Solara hotel north, and the 87 Park condominium south of the Champlain South Tower were evacuated after the collapse.
Excellent report.
Your amazing Josh.. Thank you
Hello Josh, from the pacific northwest, 50 miles north of the San-Fran-FREAK-O of the North, formerly known as Seattle.
As usual you paint a picture that even a simple man such as myself (former shipyard welder, who helped to make/create 400' ft canoe's with full size helicopter landing pads on the bow's, oh and they had what were called "moon-pools mid-deck" Two 40' ft shipping container's side x side were used to keep us from falling in them. LOL) can understand the sequence of event's and short comings that caused the collapse of the Surf-side condo. What else I'd like to mention, is the high caliber of questions and comments that I find on your posting's. To me, it's proof of the quality of the professor giving the information, i.e. that's you Josh. Stay safe, and god bless you.
Wow! Thank you so much
Great presentation and analysis.
Pandora's box with the building, the board, so many lives lost. Thank you for your analysis of this. Love the lamps you have behind you as well.
very insightful thanks
This reminds me of Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls': Everybody involved by ignoring/procrastinating/brushing aside has a part in causing/accelerating/compounding a resolvable issue, and so being responsible for a very tragic event. Will we learn something? Most likely not, but scores of lawyers will be able to upgrade to a bigger yacht.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you
Deferred Maintenance gone horribly wrong.
Josh, you are extremely passionate about your job, your career and your business and you have probably saved lives because of it. Now we have that bridge in PGH that just collapsed this morning.
The problem the plaintiffs are going to have in this case is the track record of the HOA for CTS playing “kick the can” for so many years with maintenance, and in compliance with FL law.
We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you