The developer of a New Jersey condominium development and its architecture firm face a $10 million construction defect verdict in a case involving non-compliance with fire codes.
The Grandview I building on the Hudson River, developed by Hovnanian Enterprises’ subsidiary, K. Hovnanian and designed by RTKL New Jersey Architects, was alleged to have been built in a condition that was not compliant with fire codes. The plaintiff—the condominium association--alleges that the developer knew about the non-compliance and failed to disclose this fact with buyers.
According to the plaintiff’s attorneys, the architect designed the building with plywood subflooring and later warned the developer that to comply with code the structure would have to be reclassified from Type 2 to Type 3. The reclassification would have allowed plywood if the building’s exterior steel-with-brick-veneer walls were rebuilt with code-required masonry walls.
The building codes provide for five types of buildings, ranging from the most fire-resistant Type 1 — often a skyscraper — to Type 5, typically a wood-framed house. Defense attorneys argued that the plywood flooring was not a life-safety issue, since fire alarms and exits would allow all residents to safely vacate the building. The condo association's attorneys agreed that there was no threat to residents' lives, but that property could suffer more damage as a result of the code violation.
Related Stories
| May 8, 2014
Door knob code revisions generating controversy
The City of Vancouver’s ban on doorknobs in all new buildings, which went into effect last month, has drawn a strong reaction from the public and heated debate across Canada as other jurisdictions consider the measure.
| May 8, 2014
Structural concrete code revisions open for public comments
The American Concrete Institute’s completely reorganized ACI 318-14, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is open for public review for a 45-day period.
| May 3, 2014
Controversy rages over cost, benefits of proposed OSHA silica dust rule
Introduced in August 2013, the proposal would lower allowable levels of crystalline silica in all workplaces, standardize how the dust is calculated, and require medical monitoring for employees exposed to high levels.
| May 3, 2014
California’s Title 24 promises to reshape the construction industry
California’s recent revisions to Title 24 contain ambitious performance goals: all residential buildings must be Zero Net Energy by 2020 and commercial buildings must reach that standard by 2030.
| Apr 30, 2014
House Appropriations Committee approves $3 billion cut for military construction
The Army would see the sharpest cuts on a percentage basis, with a $578 million, or 52% reduction in FY 2015.
| Apr 30, 2014
GSA wants to trade D.C. office building for construction and development services
The GSA has issued an RFQ seeking developers who can provide construction and development services in exchange for the GSA Regional Office Building and Cotton Annex located in Southwest Washington, D.C.
| Apr 30, 2014
Mexico City spending big on green roofs to fight air pollution
Although green roofs have been widely adopted in urban areas to reduce the heat island effect and stormwater runoff, Mexico City is hoping that vegetative rooftops can also reduce the city’s air pollution.
| Apr 23, 2014
California bill would make employers responsible for subcontractors' wages, workers' comp
Under the recently revised Assembly Bill 1897, employers would have to pay wages, taxes, and workers compensation on behalf of a subcontractor’s workers if the subcontractor reneges on that responsibility.
| Apr 23, 2014
Obama’s 2015 budget includes $1.7 billion to GSA for building construction, renovations
The Obama Administration has proposed $1.7 billion for construction, renovation, and repairs to federal buildings in fiscal year 2015 under the auspices of the U.S. General Services Administration.
| Apr 18, 2014
Massachusetts Supreme Court clarifies building code liability issue on mixed-use projects
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that distinct portions of a mixed-used building may be treated as distinct and different structures under the state building code.
