Re: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage
- From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:07:56 EDT
Structural vs. nonstructural actually seems like a better way to describe damage.
"Cosmetic" is open to all kinds of interpretation, plus it opens the option to a third possibility, i.e. something that is neither cosmetic or structural. Structural vs. nonstructural makes it pretty clear those are the two options.
I think it is probably impossible to do all-encompassing definitions for all types of structures, but the issue seems to come up most with respect to residential structures. It seems like some association like NAHB should have come up with a printed definition.
- Prev by Subject: RE: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage
- Next by Subject: Re: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage
- Previous by thread: RE: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage
- Next by thread: Re: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage