The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEIS Engineering Report Report of Findings Verdine Car vs Home State Farm Claim #12-27W1-18T EIS Project No: 149-03-2025 Prepared For: Sarah Gillis ServiceMaster Restore _________________________ Blake Hansen, E.I., Project Engineer _________________________ Reviewed by Brian C. Hansen, P.E. I O ATTERB S O EIDAH F N N C.A HANS GISTEERE RPRDR EISEFO S ENGINNALO E 9 2 0 6 Brian Hansen Digitally signed by Brian Hansen Date: 2025.03.25 14:14:59 -06'00' Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 2 of 12 Table of Contents Table of Contents Preamble ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Background Information ........................................................................................................... 3 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................................... 3 Results of the Investigation....................................................................................................... 3 Discussion of the Results ............................................................................................................ 4 Disclaimer of Liability to Third-Parties; No Third-Party Beneficiaries ..................... 5 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 3 of 12 Preamble In accordance with a request from Sarah Gillis of ServiceMaster Restore, this office investigated a loss claim involving damage to a home caused by the impact of a car. Our investigations were limited to onsite observations and interviews with the homeowner and restoration contractor. The results of the investigation are hereby reported, along with a discussion of the results and conclusions associated with the loss, which are limited by our scope. Conclusions Based on the results of this investigation, the following conclusions appear to be warranted: In my opinion, the damage to the home is limited to the foundation at the northwest side of the structure. The extent of the damage is such that repairs are warranted. The methodology of repair is as noted in the Discussion of Results. Background Information The home at 1201 Cleveland Blvd in Caldwell, Idaho was struck by an out-of-control vehicle. The extent and repairability of the damage are unknown. Purpose and Scope The scope of the investigation was to conduct an independent inspection of the home and includes the following: 1. Contact the restoration contractor to arrange a convenient time to inspect the home. 2. Conduct an on-site inspection of the home and document the conditions observed with photographs. 3. Evaluate the investigation's results, relevant background information, and photo documentation, and prepare a report to present the results and provide a professional opinion regarding the loss. The purpose of this investigation is to provide an engineering opinion as to the most probable extent and repairability of the noted damage. Results of the Investigation An on-site inspection of the claimed loss was performed on 21 March 2025. Blake Hansen, E.I., Project Engineer, inspected the site. The homeowner (Mr. Verdine) and restoration contractors (Andrew Lancaster and Sarah Gillis) were present during the inspection. The following items were noted during the on-site inspection and subsequent investigation. Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 4 of 12 1. The property is a single-story (over a partial basement), wood-framed, single- family dwelling. County records indicate the home was originally constructed in 1900. See Exhibits A and B. 2. Upon arrival at the home, the restoration contractor identified the area where the out-of-control vehicle struck. I observed damage to the home's foundation along the northwest side. I also noted damage to the rim joist. See Exhibits C and D. 3. Inside the home, I noted that the gypsum materials in the impacted area had been removed prior to my inspection. Upon examining the wall framing in the affected section, I did not observe any damage caused by the incident. See Exhibits E and F. 4. While inspecting the wall framing, I observed that the floor sloped toward the northwest side of the home. Using a laser level, I measured an elevation difference of 5/8" over a span of 4'. The floor is sloping due to the unsupported condition of the exterior wall and floor joists. See Exhibits G and H. 5. In the crawlspace, I inspected the home's foundation and noted that it consisted of two types: an exterior perimeter concrete foundation and an interior lava-rock- type foundation. My inspection of the crawlspace confirmed that the only damage caused by the vehicle impact was to the exterior concrete foundation. See Exhibits I and J. 6. In my inspection of the exterior of the home, I noted cracking to the exterior finish materials (stucco) of the home on the southwest corner of the home. See Exhibits K and L. Discussion of the Results In my assessment of the structural damage to the home caused by the impact of the out- of-control vehicle, the structure as a whole did not sustain substantial (often defined as more than 50%) structural damage to the vertical elements of its lateral force-resisting system or to its gravity load-carrying components. As the damage to the home is not substantial, localized repairs to the home qualify under International Existing Building Code (2021 IEBC) Section 405.2 where damaged structural members are simply removed and replaced or individual walls reframed with like-for-like materials. The following scope of work addresses structural members/systems that need to be replaced/repaired. Other work will be required including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and finishes. The description of this “other work” is outside of our scope but should be addressed when creating an estimate for the restoration of the insured’s home. The work should be done with a building permit and per code, best building practice, and manufacturer guidelines. Based on the observed damage and the discussion above, the scope of work to repair the noted damage to the structural members/systems is as follows: ● Provide temporary shoring as required during all phases of the repair efforts. Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 5 of 12 ● Remove and/or make safe electrical and/or plumbing items in the area of construction. ● Jack the northwest side of the into a position where a new length of foundation can be constructed. ● Cut out the damaged concrete (approximately 28’ northeastward from the southwest corner of the home). ● Reconstruct the concrete foundation along the northwest side of the home as follows: o Ensure the new concrete features rebar complying with IRC Chapter 4. o Size of footing should match the size of the existing footing. o Ensure horizontal rebar is integrated into existing foundation by inserting reinforcement into a hole drilled in the foundation approximately 8”. The rebar is to be epoxied into the existing foundation with Simpson Set-XP epoxy. o 1/2" diameter J-bolts must be embedded at least 7” into the foundation for connection to mud sill. Maximum spacing is 6’ o.c. Bolts to be located within 12” of the ends of each plate section ● Set the home back into place on the new and existing foundation. Secure the mud sill to the foundation with the J-bolts. ● Replace the rim joist. Secure per IRC Table 602.3(1). If unrealized structural damage was incurred to the building for which repairs are uncertain, please contact this office for further direction. Disclaimer of Liability to Third-Parties; No Third-Party Beneficiaries This report was prepared by Engineering Inspection Services, Inc. (“EIS”) solely for the use and benefit of the person or entity that engaged EIS’s services (the “Client”). Nothing contained in this report is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any third- party any rights or remedies by reason of this report. There are no third-party beneficiaries of this report. No third-party is entitled to rely on any information contained in this report and EIS assumes no legal duty to any third-party in connection with this report. Except as expressly set forth in this report, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, neither EIS nor any of its employees, consultants, agents or contractors shall have any liability to any person or entity other than EIS’s Client for any damages whatsoever, however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, negligence, tort or otherwise, arising in any way out of the use or distribution of this report by any person or entity. Nothing in this report creates or implies privity of contract (or any legal privity or duty) between EIS and any third-party, including, but not limited to, the individual(s) or entity who are the subject of the instant report. EIS’s opinions are based on experience, education, work performed, industry resources, engineering references, and other information acquired and listed in this report. EIS reserves the right to supplement or modify our opinions and conclusions. Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 6 of 12 APPENDIX Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 7 of 12 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 8 of 12 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 9 of 12 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 10 of 12 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 11 of 12 Engineering Report 25 March 2025 Claim #12-27W1-18T Page 12 of 12