EIFS CONFRONTATION
Last week I found myself in the middle of an EIFS controversy between a Client, two real estate agents, the EIFS Manufacturer, the local EIFS Distributor, and the EIFS Installer. This doesn't happen every week, but this type of confrontation is good for the inspector to prove to himself what he is really made of. The ordeal is a tempering process that will sharpen and improve the inspector's judgement and skill. If you find yourself in a similar situation, I strongly recommend that you bring a large manure shovel to make your way through the lies and dung that quickly pile up waist high.
I was called upon to do a standard home inspection on a newer home that was yet to be lived in (It was built in 1999) and being offered for sale by a relocation company. Somehow the home was built but the owner moved before completion, and a relocation company was trying to unload the property. As is standard procedure, the relocation company already had an inspection, radon test, termite inspection, and EIFS evaluation performed to protect their interests. The written EIFS evaluation did a good job of identifying installation flaws, but did a very lousy job of evaluating the moisture intrusion challenges.
My normal home inspection was being performed for the new buyer and I was selected because of my expertise with EIFS stucco. The inspection turned up the normal uncompleted items that are found on most new homes in our area, yet nobody cared about what was found. All that was focused on was my observations on the EIFS cladding. I made my observations without performing a full EIFS Moisture Intrusion Evaluation. In fact, they asked me if I would perform an EIFS Moisture Intrusion Evaluation and I told them that they should expect to spend about $850.00, but that I would not do it for them. I told them that I could recommend somebody if they liked, but declined to perform the EIFS work for them a second and third time.
PLEASE NOTE: I made the sound business decision to not perform the EIFS Moisture Intrusion Evaluation on homes that I perform normal home inspections unless I have discussed the options before I arrive at the home. Offering to do it later violates the A.I.I. Standards of Practice which prohibit the inspector from using the inspection as a vehicle to gain work in another area.
Have you ever smelled a future lawsuit and wisely shied away? Well, that is how I was feeling about this transaction. I left the jobsite, finished my report and then made some phone calls. The following is the e-mail that I sent off to the EIFS Manufacturer of the system installed on the home...
Mr. Brady Kolden - UNI-TEX Division Manager:
This message is a follow-up to our lengthy conversation on the phone (3-13-2000) regarding the house located at 1646 Wylie Lane in Draper, Utah. The EIFS installation was done without any backwrapping, gaps, backer rod or sealant at the windows as well as numerous other misapplications including horizontal surfaces and lack of kick-out flashings. Since speaking with you I have received an official document from Mr. Jeff Muir at Advanced Architectural Products. Mr. Muir presents himself as the "Utah UNI-TEX Representative" and he states: "The above mentioned home was inspected by myself and found to be installed in accordance with UNITED COATINGS, MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS for the UNI-TEX E.I.F.S. SYSTEM."
So here is my question..... Since I feel that this installation does not conform with typical EIFS installation guidelines, I must not be aware of accepted installation methods allowed by your manufacturing company. How can I get my hands on the UNITED COATINGS, MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS so that this issue can be put to rest?
If Mr. Jeff Muir is approving this installation and you are backing him up...... Then I have to change the way I report on United Coating installations. I cannot do this with good conscience until I read your installation detailing specs.
On the other hand, if Mr. Muir is approving misinstallations then I need to know that my reporting is accurate and that you will deal with Mr. Muir accordingly. The last thing that we need is more misapplications being approved as good installations (This is unfair to the consumers).
AS A SIDE NOTE: The UNI-TEX Certified Applicator, Mr. David Webber, in his conversation with the Selling Agent has also said that the installation is correct and that my observations and the observations of the Inspector who prepared the original EIFS report are "Full of it" and that we have no clue what we are talking about. In reference to the Wylie Lane home he stated that he had returned and caulked the area of the previously identified elevated moisture reading, but I could find no evidence of any repairs.
Please keep me informed and please send me a copy of the UNITED COATINGS, MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS so that my reporting methods can be backed up with YOUR facts, literature and documentation.
Sincerely,
Michael Leavitt - Orem, Utah
This was a very strange message to send off. Afterall, I was still unarmed because I did not have the Manufacturer's detailed installation specs in hand. I opted to politely deal with the subject and wait for their response. I have yet to hear back from Mr. Kolden.
After reading this message Brent Foster pondered.... This is very interesting, different factories with possibly different installation and detail instructions not in accordance with the industry standard. Brent Foster - Lacey, WA
I wouldn't be too concerned about different detailing practices because Mr. Kolden confirmed the installation flaws with me over the phone. Their installation specs are close to the same as every other Manufacturers. The breakdown comes with the Suppliers and Installers.
Steve Bradley responded to me....Michael, it is just amazing that people go so far to bury themselves.
For those of you who do NOT do EIFS Inspections you should BEWARE. Should a home have EIFS and you do not call attention to the siding weaknesses and there is a "CHALLENGE" in the future, you will be dragged into the fray with the installer and manufacturer. Disclaim and report the siding and recommend further evaluation.
The last issue of "Journal of Light Construction" had a blurb that Chicago may BAN EIFS on Residential construction projects! If you don't subscribe to this magazine and want to receive it, I will give you the particulars so you can receive the magazine. Steve Bradley - Oregon
Steve is correct and is accurate about our need to subscribe to the Journal of Light Home Construction. To subscribe you can find them at www.JLCOnline.com. The March 2000 issue of the JLC shared on page 19... "The Chicago City Council is considering an ordinance banning the use of EIFS for all residential construction in Chicago. The proposed ban comes in response to reports of moisture damage in wood framed buildings sided with EIFS, a type of artificial stucco." Steve also made assumptions that all of you were aware of the older details about EIFS banning. The Chicago ban will not be the first such banning and will surely not be the last. North Carolina was the first State to ban its use and other areas are sure to follow suit if changes are not made from the manufacturer on down the line. Visit www.Novashoc.org ( now hosted by http://www.hadd.com) for other EIFS details.
Some Inspectors would say that there is no need to make an issue out of EIFS if there is no visible damage. Let me share why I think that they should rethink their stance. If there is major EIFS damage to the structure the financial damages are similar to a damaged foundation. If major repairs are needed then the repairs could be quickly in the tens of thousands of dollars. This means a LAWSUIT.
Now, we are not supposed to run a round like Chicken Little for fear of a lawsuit, but we should act smartly and disclaim clearly to our clients the need for further evaluation by an EIFS specialist when we encounter the product. Failure to do so would be deemed an important omission in our report and we would have to eventually anti-up our E&O deductible because of the high probability of a lawsuit. I can hear it now from the poor innocent homebuyer.... "I relied upon the Home Inspector to warn me of potential Major Issues. If he had told me about the possibility of EIFS related damage I would not have purchased this home." Even though my Service Agreement says that I can't report on every possible future hazard or damage, I would still be in the litigation process defending my innocence.
EIFS CONCLUSION - There really is no conclusion yet. Last I heard the Buyer was going to purchase the home because they were only going to be there a couple years. They love the floor plan and don't want to hear the real truth. They are going to forego the EIFS Moisture Intrusion Evaluation afterall because they don't want to be burdened with the findings when they resell the home. They believe that they can get in and get out unscathed. They changed their minds about not buying the home when they reveived the letter from the supplier stating that if the system was installed correctly and to the Manufacturer's standards. I felt a little down about their decision when I received a big dose of confidence after opening an e-mail from an Inspector friend in Georgia. Noel McShane thoughtfully forewarned....
- Man, I remember deals like this....
You're about five years behind us here in Atlanta....
Put your Hip Waders on......
I am in agreement.... I think that the local suppliers and installers are going to keep piling on the manure until it finally hits the fan. The attitude of "That's the way we have always done it" is going to prevail until the first wave of lawsuits sweep our marketplace...... I'll keep you informed.
I shared this experience in my May 20, 2000 issue of the Monday Morning Messenger, a long running weekly online newsletter produced for the inspection indusrty.
