Stan Caldwell wrote:
I honestly can't believe that any engineer at all is participating in
this ridiculous "program."
Here is a link to the most recent TDI Certification Form
(WPI-2-BC-5) that Texas engineers are required to sign.
Would you sign this form? Would anyone in their right mind?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Grathwol,
tell the Owner verbally or in writing that anything was built per the
plans and specs unless you were there watching all the subgrade prep,
every bolt tightened, every rebar placed, inspected every weld, etc.,
It will also be highly dependent on what
“certify” means. There are certain things that it could mean where his
E&O insurance company would say “tough luck...you are on your own
as you violated your policy terms”. If that is the case, then about
the only “plus” side is the engineer will get the make the decision as
to whether to fight or pay as the insurance company will not be part of
the equation anymore.
I want to feel bad for this engineer...but I really do not know enough
to really make that decision. It is entirely possible that this is a
situation of the engineer’s own making (i.e. “certifying” or
“warranting” something he/she should not have...in other words, taking
on too “onerous” terms in order to get a project...or the risk was not
worth the pay).
On 7/29/09 6:55 PM, "Stan Caldwell" <stancaldwell(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
As you probably know, the "pay or fight" decision always lies with the
insurer, not with the insured. They make the decision to minimize
business risk, without regard to the reputation or wishes of
the defendant engineer.
Neither I nor anyone in my firm have any direct involvement or inside
knowledge of this specific matter, beyond what was written in the
The lesson that everyone should take to heart is "Never, ever CERTIFY
anything that you do not personally know to be absolute FACT." In
other words, if it wasn't done personally by you or under your direct
and continuous supervision, don't attest to it. This should also apply
to the use of your PE and/or SE seals.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Andrew Kester <akester(--nospam--at)cfl.rr.com>
Not that you have all the details, but I want to see the forensic
engineer or better yet, the attorney, that is able to prove what the
wind speed velocity was at the moment of failure at that specific site.
Also, even engineers who specialize in roofs really don’t really design
anything, rather we specify systems (or in his case inspect) that are
designed and/or tested by the manufacturers to building code minimums.
I also understand Texas has some difficult for me to grasp free-for-all
areas where they may not have such Code standards. In Florida, just
about any manufactured product on a building has to pass testing and be
on the qualified list and the get a Product Approval Number. If a
shingle manufacturer or code says 6 nails per shingle is good for
V=120mph, and that is what was done, then it met the minimum
requirements and nobody may really be at fault. Plus, how do you prove
there were no microbursts, tornadic activity, or other spikes in the
average wind pressure. When I did work in MS after Katrina, sometimes
the nearest weather data was taken 10+ miles away at a weather tower or
military facility, and a lot of those devices failed...
Poor guy is going to have to hire a defense attorney though to get
through that, or his E and O insurance will have to, which they will
likely then increase his rates whether they pay it or fight it. Needs
to get him a good forensic engineer with lots of roof experience, I
know some that are licensed out there if this is a friend.
THAT SUCKS!!!!!!! (no better verbiage I could come up with)
Andrew Kester, PE
When they first started it, it served as a sort of "honey-trap" for
Texas BoPE. They'd collect a bunch of these forms, then randomly check
on some of the projects so certified. Invariably they'd find something
that was awry, then charge the licensed P.E. involved with dereliction
Ironically, the Texas legislature just passed an ordinance that voids
any requirement by any state agency for engineer competency beyond
holding the P.E. I suspect this was prompted by hardly any engineers
signing up for this "wonderful program" any longer, and the pols and
bureaucrats wrongly concluding it's because it has previously required
engineers to apply to be added to the list.
NOTE that I have no way of KNOWING this is the case, it's only a
surmise on my part.
Most of the people I've known who do this sort of thing are retirees
who just want to supplement their income. Some deal, huh? Do your
public duty for a couple of hundred bucks then lose your license.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********