Contractor friend stopped by , heres the story.
2005 had a client that he does repairs for ask him to fix rotten boards on deck,
He said you need a new deck , she said just fix the ones you think are bad now, Tand M.
Year later she has a friend who wants to buy the house, homeowner tells her dont go on the deck, she does falls through and breaks her leg.
Now he has a letter from her insurance company, there sueing him for 80 grand cause its his fault. He was served papers.
I told him bring it right away to his insurance company and consult a Lawyer too.
Reason im thinking hard on this is cause a client of mine had me put a piece of plywood on his rotten deck last month.
Are we never to repair anything again or temporary fix anything, can we be sued for work we dont do????.
Any advice for my friend??
Replies
I suppose no contract was signed off on where he indicated she needed a new deck, but as instructed he would fix the boards that appeared defective? This would have been a case where it would have been a good idea to get her to sign off on the repairs at completion and agree that he had fixed the boards that appeared to be defective. I take it the lady he worked for is sueing him, as I could not see how he owed any duty of care to someone other than his client, but then again, I am not familiar with US law. I sure hope he has some pictures and maybe it will turn out to be a board that appeared ok at the time he completed the repairs and got worse since he was there. Do not cheap out on lawyers, that is one profession where in most cases you get what you pay for.
Good luck for your friend.
First case just like that Ive heard about .
However there are many in the same realm.
Its a good case becasue what he did probably did not fail as what it is most often.
She said repair whats needed or what ever .
Is he qualified to make the professional determination? Court cases always go there .
I can see somone that has a state lisense for contracting being liable .
If hes a glorified handiman calling him self a contractor then probably not Id guess if his own lawyer threw him under the bus far enough.
Licensed people are at great risk . When I was inspecting there were a bunch of cases brought up in school to get our attention. At least the women is not dead and hes not been arrested. Its get a lot worse than 75 grand.
Tim
I don't know. It is not that clear cut.He did the work about 2 years earlier. Lots of things can go wrong in the meantime.And the woman was told not to go out of the deck.We have no idea of exactly what was said. She could have just said "don't go out on the deck". Or she might have said "The deck is bad shape and is not safe to go out on.".
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Yep , we dont know but he put it out there.
Tim
here's what i'd bet...
the injured party filed with her insurance company
her insurance company sued the homeowner and the hoeowner's insurance sued the contractor as a third partyafter the depositions and the evidence is sorted out, some of the partys may be released from the suitjust shows to go you how importatnt it is to have GL to defend you in suits like thisMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
The injured parts insurance company is suing him. She did not own the house yet when it happened. Boy are you right about having insurance
They sue everyone they can looking for the deepest pocket.
"They sue everyone they can looking for the deepest pocket. "They sue everyone they can, looking to avoid the loss of it all through finger pointing by the ones they included at the one they forgot to include.Rebeccah
Yes that is true.. The respondents will sometimes finger the one that is culpable.
Hussein,
If my insurance company paid out an a claim like that, i'd drop them quicker than they would drop me.
Its a shame looking at where we came from to where we are.
Family.....Their always there when they need you.
msa... i wouldn't want them to pay the claim....but i would expect them to defend me in the suitMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Agreed. Sounds like there is at least something to defend here. I really dont see this guys liability.
Family.....Their always there when they need you.
" i wouldn't want them to pay the claim....but i would expect them to defend me in the suit"Look at your liability policy closely.I bet that they have the option to settle it if they want to rather than going to court..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
doh.... i nu datand since , BTDT... that's actually better than spending time in depositionswhen you give depositions there is no compensation... the only ones getting paid are the lawyersthe only good thing is you are not paying the lawyersMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Whats sad is if you have a lic your a target yet the unlicensed people skirt by
As I took classes from state inspectors and met with them, it didnt take long to learn a licensed person has a handle on them for people to grab on to.
To be lisensed in the state of AR. you must have general liability . Then you have the lisense at stake . Then you are a qualified professional that should know better than screw up.
Say someone was plumbing with out a lisense and caught , very little was done becasue it has to go to court instead of their panel to hand out their judgement .
Theres more of a chance of a judge being lenient .
Tim
I've always said that the only reason that the state gives you a license is so that they can threaten and take it away. Licenses are one of the biggest hindrances to competition there is. I can build a 100 story commercial building without a license but I need one to build an 8x8 shed to hold a lawnmower. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"Are we never to repair anything again or temporary fix anything, can we be sued for work we dont do????."
That would be the safest policy. The last stairs/deck I looked at needed repair. I explained to the lady that the only way I would involve myself in that would be to completely demo the entire porch and stairs and rebuild everything.
I didn't get the job but I didn't buy myself anything to worry about either.
Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I was always real carefull about stairs.
Not real sure but i think if there not exactly right they can come back on you years later
I would think another critical factor is that the HO told the lady not to go out on the deck, so the HO knew the deck was dangerous--the lady went out at her own risk. And of course replacing a few boards does not mean your friend was warranteeing the whole deck.
Not a lawyer, but he's got a good case and should counter-sue the insurance company for frivolous litigation. :)
Ahh, yes, but her attorney will suggest that she relied upon his advice to replace those that were dangerous and did not restrict his scope of works in anyway. Being the layperson, she will play dumb. I doubt that his telling her to stay off the deck will come up much. She will probably suggest that she did not understand what he meant or make up some other story. In the end, its all about getting to mediation so they get paid. The unfortunate thing here is that it would take about $60k in legal fees to get this through court (in Canada anyway). This will be settled long before he ends up in court because there just is not enough money at stake. It takes a $300k plus lawsuit to be worthwhile to take the distance. I bet she has one of those bottom feeding lawyers that wants to get in and make a quick buck. It has little to do about right and wrong.
None of what I am suggesting means I agree with her, but having been down this road in my profession I am only offering what I suspect she may claim. Its not a lot of fun.
Brad
"she will play dumb"She is not that dumb. She refused his recomendation to fix the whole deck and she told the lady not to go on the deck because it was not safe. Which indicates she had an understanding of the decks condition.
True, but I think a logical person would have tried to convince the friend not to sue. It was her instruction to fix portions only, so a little common sense should have suggested to her that she was either partly or totally responsibe. She is not recollecting any of that it seems. I bet she will have forgotten that she instructed her friend of any safety issues regarding the deck. Then it is he said, she said. Paper rules.
Brad
I had a friend who was a hardwood floor layer. I forget the details but he was involved in one of those shotgun, sue everyone suits even though his part of the job was not part of the problem. Couldn't get liability insurance anymore after the dust cleared. In Calif. of course.John
When I was in KS the aircraft repair shop I ran was involved in a lawsuit. An aircraft it had worked on before I got there flew into the ground. The list of defendants started out with Cessna and worked it's way down to anyone who had ever seen an airplane I believe.
The sole survivor testified that it was bad weather,they were trying to land, no one had said anything about any problems and the next thing he knew they were cartwheeling.
We finally got eliminated from the list.
Insurance companies are crooks. Just had to deal with one and they are crooks.
I pay and pay and pay and they don't want to cover anything when it comes time to. Crooks!
A key question would be what part of the deck failed. If a piece that he had repaired broke you'd think he'd be in much more trouble than if a piece he hadn't repaired broke.
From the HO's point of view, she asked him to fix what was necessary, so whatever he didn't fix - the contractor is essentially telling her that it didn't need to be fixed - she thinks its okay (or at least not immently dangerous). I know she told them not to go on the porch, but there's a difference between "I think you shouldn't go on the porch as there is a 1% chance something bad could happen" and "I think you shouldn't go on the porch because there is a 100% chance something bad could happen".
From the contractor's point of view, he told her that it was necessary to replace the whole deck. But, she didn't want to do what was necessary, so he did whatever was 'something in-between'. I imagine the deposition would involve understanding what criteria the contractor used in deciding what to fix and what not to fix. Did he fix all boards that were failing right now? All boards that looked like they would fail within a year?
The board that broke was a old one not a new one, one year and 2 months after it was repaired
Your friend should have erected saftey barriers preventing anyone from walking on the deck. And signs should have been posted...maybe something recorded too down at the county.This country is going to the lawyers. We are doomed. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I have to agree with MikeSmith. It's called subrogation. The third party's attorney has the right to name anyone who looked at the house or worked on the house to see if fault can be found. Getting an attorney and the GL insurance involved is good idea too. Just make sure your friend agrees to nothing, says nothing and always has the third party (whomever) referred back to his attorney.
I can see two possible scenarios here.First is that they are suing everyone who has insurance just to see what they can get. Often insurance companies will offer $10,000 or so just to make a lawsuit go away and avoid an expensive trial. The lawyers know this all to well. So the more people they sue, the more money they get.Every lawsuit I've been involved in has been a case of this. No company I work for has ever been sued for anything they really did wrong. Every time we've been sued it's just been a money grab by the lawyers over silly things..The second option is much more ominous - The lady probably does have a case. The GC is considered to be the "expert", not the HO. The judge and/or the jury will see that he made only partial repairs even though the GC knew the whole deck needed replaced. What the HO asked the GC to do or what the HO was told may be completely irrelevant. That's why when you go to one of these quickie brake repair shops they will refuse to only replace brake pads if something else is wrong. ie: They won't let the vehicle owner sign a waiver and do a partial job. They know the courts will say they THEY were the experts and they should have fixed it right or refused to work on it. My Brother is a mechanic, and he's been through this a couple of times..Honestly - I'd lean towards the 2nd one here. The fact that the HO knew about the need for a new deck might help out in the size of the judgment. So would the fact that more than a year has passed since he did the work.But my non lawyer guess is that he's in hot water.
You're slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter.
lots of good stuff there to think about Boss, . Sad to think one must have to deal with facing lawsuits to make a little amount of money on a repair
Any time a client refuses safety related repairs I put it in writing and have them sign it.
Hopefully he'll get out of it. Sounds like a crappy client, or (unfortunetly) a modern day sue happy nonaccoutability human being.
Family.....Their always there when they need you.
Let's look at this as an attorney would ....
First, assuming the clients' story sounds reasonable, you confirm every detail. Who, what, where, when, why, and how. You need to actually see every piece of paper, every receipt.
Then you need to determine the relevant facts. Was a license or permit required? Was the contractor licensed? Who actually owned the deck? Who actually got hurt, and under what circumstances? What is the established law that may relate. (For example, how long is a contractor required to warranty his work?)
Then comes the big question: How much is at stake? Can the client pay your bill? After he does, will there be anything left worth suing over?
When a lawsuit begins, everyone with the slightest connection is named in the suit. For example, had the boards been bought at Home Depot, HD would be named in the suit. This step, while necessary for procedural reasons, is followed by the vast majority of the named parties being dropped from the suit.
The deck was under the homeowners care and control.
You can sue anyone for anything but it doesn't mean you are right. Contractor has zero responsibility.
Ahh, the deep pockets theory. Sue everyone that is well insured or has money and see what comes out in the end.
Curious, what do you think the legal fees would be to first establish the facts of the case, research the applicable laws and prepare a defence? I bet it is a significant portion of this claim.
Without knowing the particulars, it seems most likely that it is whatever insurance company is on the hook for the lady's broken leg that is bringing the legal action. And they aren't interested in the contractor, just his liability carrier. Very likely settled long before it gets to court.
Na ... it's more to prevent a 'monkey in the middle' situation. Let's say there's a problem with your new car, and you sue.
If you sue the dealer, he can say it's the factories' fault.
If you sue the factory, they can say it's the dealers' fault
So, you sue them both, and let the court determine if either should be let off the hook.
Apparently the seller/owner doesn't have homeowners insurance.
I may be wrong as i just scanned his papers but the lady that broke her legs insurance company is suing the contractor. I would think they would be suing the first ladys homeowners insurance company but maybe both are named
Please scan the papers again and tell me what type of insurance company this is, that files this type of suit.
Many things here aren't passing a basic smell test.
When i see him i will get more info, Its very true and i was stunned. They served the subpoena to his wife and she got very emotional. He came over and showed me the paperwork, I asked how can this be, He showed me the insurance company name that represents the lady with the broken leg{i dont want to say it as i might be wrong}. He has 30 days to respond to the court. I will find out more but im not going to call him. I went trough rocky times in my marriage having a bizness with its ups and downs. The poor guy was already fighting with his wife. In the little i read the injured lady said she had to have help to get up the stairs and said there were no guardrails or handrails on the first step. He had nothing to do with that and i asked if she thought something was unsafe why did she proceed
It just doesn't make any sense. Insurance companies sue to recover monies paid out in a claim from a client. So the insurance company has paid their client, with a broken leg, 80 grand. I'm really interested in what sort of insurance she had.... keep the info coming.... I could use a policy like that.
Thats what i thought, the insurance company paid her now there coming after the carpenter to collect from him.. Now i saw his name but not sure if the lady that owned the homes company was co listed. And the lady that broke her leg did not own the home when this happened. I would think broken leggs company would sue lady that owns the home company then that company would be the one to go after the carpenter. I cant go taping off decks on houses where i work unless im directed to, And i cant tell strangers not to go on decks if im not there
I'd still like to know what insurance I can get that pays me 80 grand for a broken leg.
I dunno the specifics of that but i guess its the medical bills there suing for
Seems high for medical bills alone, but it depends exactly what her injury was.Couple thousand for the doctor.
If she had surgery, then you've got the O.R. costs (5 digits likely) plus hospital stay, if any (4-5 digits, depending on length of stay and resources used).
Durable medical equipment could include crutches, cast boot, dressing changes, wheelchair, wheelchair ramp -- the latter two add significantly to the cost, the former not so much.
Physical therapy, depends how much and for how long, could be 4 digits.If it was a femur fracture rather than a lower leg fracture, multiply by at *least* 2.If it was an open fracture (bone poked out through the skin), add more for antibiotics, possible multiple trips to the O.R., additional nursing expenses for wound care, longer rehabilitation.If the fracture didn't heal right or had other complications, then there are those expenses as well.It can add up.Rebeccah
Never heard of health insurance sueing for reimbursement. Had a buddy cut off his finger and had it reattached. Would have been ironic if his insurance sued him for cutting it off??????
A health insurer will sometimes sue a third party if the third party can be held responsible for a loss that the health insurer had to pay. Example: a friend of a friend was working for cash for a homeowner and fell from a ladder, breaking his back. His health insurer paid for his treatment but then sued the homeowner and won. The HO's homeowner's insurance policy paid to the limit of the policy but ultimately the HO had to sell the house to pay the rest.
Going to court is always an expensive "####-shoot"!
I was involved in a homeowner's litigation that lasted three years and held 5 parties in the grasp of five lawyers.
I asked to be petitioned out and presented solid evidence for dismissal...the 6th lawyer, the judge, would not rule on the petition for two + years.
The month before the trial and $7000 dollars of lawyer and paper trail, I was offered the opportinuty to be dismissed by the plaintiff if I paid him $1000 cash!!!
At that point the Judge decided to exclude me from the defendents list, but put me on the witness list. Two days in court as a witness and they paid me $40! Thanks!
The plaintiff lost by jury trial.....all the defendants lost....the only winner$ were the five lawyer$.
I told my lawyer that I could not find enough obnoxoius words to describe how utterly disgusted and disappointed I was in the American Judicial system.
I never got his last bill!
Court i$ alway$ a ####-$hoot! $tay away if at all po$$ible!
...............Iron Helix
amen.... avoid litigation at all costs... even if you win , you loseMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
And remember, if you touch it, you bought (the responsibility for) it.
Remember Mary Dyer, a Christian Martyr (Thank you, Puritans) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_DyerMay your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
"And remember, if you touch it, you bought (the responsibility for) it."
So what you are saying is if I replace a light bulb that is burned out.... and the reason it burned out is a loose neutral in the box.... changing that bulb makes me responsible for a house burning down because I didn't check every connection????
What color is the sky in your world?
Edited 8/3/2008 8:45 pm ET by sledgehammer
So what you are saying is if I replace a light bulb that is burned out.... and the reason it burned out is a loose neutral in the box.... changing that bulb makes me responsible for a house burning down because I didn't check every connection????
Your hypothetical situation is not a good analogy here. Of course, If you are only told that the bulb is burned out, but not that there were wild fluctuations in brightness, etc., you would have no reason (or duty) to do anything but replace the bulb.
In this case, the contractor was asked to use his professional judgement in replacing 'only those boards that need replacing'. It is the contractor who decided which boards not to replace, which is where the question of liability lies. The fact that there was no failure for at least a year afterward mitigates, but does not absolutely release the contractor from any liability, at least in my mind.
Bob
Edited 8/3/2008 9:28 pm ET by bobguindon
>>Never heard of health insurance sueing for reimbursement. Had a buddy cut off his finger and had it reattached. Would have been ironic if his insurance sued him for cutting it off??????Suits of subrogation are very common.Of course, the insurance industry doesn't want you to her about those "frivolous" lawsuits which make us such a "litigeous society."The concept is simple and reasonable:Insurance is to spread risk of accidents.If an accident is someone's fault, the insurance company pays the person who is hurt now, and then goes after the person responsible (or who might be responsible.)The problem is, we all want our "rights," but few of us understand that those we charge with protecting our rights have to through as wide a net as possible.
Remember Mary Dyer, a Christian Martyr (Thank you, Puritans) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_DyerMay your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
Insurance companies have a "Check list" where they will pay X thousand dollars for a hand, arm, leg, and so on and so on. I've seen the list and it's sad the price they put on "body parts".
Insurance companies are evil. They are looking for ways to assign blame to cut their loss.
Insurance companies will also find any way/excuse they can to cancel your policy. My neighbor had Liberty Mutual for years, no problem. Last winter, the neighbors "flat roof" (slight pitch, not flat), had some leak issues. Liberty Mutual settled the claim, then cancelled the policy as "we do not insure flat roofs".
You guys are really starting to make me wonder what world you operate in.
Health insurance never sues the offending party. Many health claims cost way more then a busted leg. HIV, hepititis, e coli.... we would have health care running wild trying to figure out who you caught the flu from if this was a reality.... which it isn't.
You've been duped into a bogus thread bolsterd by many a claim of.... a friend of a friend who knew a lady who had a son that lost his shirt.....
Reread the thread. Nothing the contractor did was at fault. He didn't sell them a maintance agreement. He fixed a couple of boards and they are just fine and dandy. The homeowner is not being sued???? You figure that one out.
Geeze you guys are just too easy.....
Edited 8/3/2008 8:37 pm ET by sledgehammer
sledge... what part are you disagreeing with ?
if you work on someone's house
and a third party gets injured in that house
and it involves something you worked on
you had better be prepared to be named in a suit
eg: a threshold is too high and someone trips and breaks a leg
or you build a set of stairs and the bottom riser is 1" lower than the other risers and someone trips and breaks a leg
or you repair a roof and the roof leaks and mold develops... be prepared.. and read your policy too... lots of policies are excluding mold
the policy of working for cash is not going to protect anyone either... a chain of evidence can be built to satisfy a court that the person working for cash has a contract and a responsibility... cash will not protect anyone... in fact it makes the builder appear to be trying to skirt the law
so, maybe i don't understand your point..... but health insurance is not the same as general Liability insurance
and builders / contractors had best understand that they have lots of liability and need protectionMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
the policy of working for cash is not going to protect anyone either... a chain of evidence can be built to satisfy a court that the person working for cash has a contract and a responsibility... cash will not protect anyone... in fact it makes the builder appear to be trying to skirt the law
Where's the chain of evidence? A simple repair job, an hour or so with no one present but the workman and the HO, for cash with the verbal understanding that the work is being done according to the owner's specifications as a temporary repair with no guaranty, written, verbal or implied.
The motive is to both take care of a potentially dangerous problem or security risk, making it safe temporarily, and do a favor as requested. Be it a friend, neighbor or former client.
I've done quite a few jobs for cash, with that kind of agreement. Maybe it's just good karma or having good judgement about who's honorable and who's not, but I've never been bitten by any of those jobs.
Edited 8/4/2008 1:26 pm by Hudson Valley Carpenter
I can assure you i did not make this up. however i went over it 2 times myself trying to understand it. i was not sitting here bored and decided to write a phony thread. when i see him i will get the details and report back here. red sky in the morning sailor take warning. im watching what i do from now on
And people wonder why the hourly charge seems high!
I got sued by a delivery guy! The following were named in the paperwork:
Me, cause I ordered the stuff. The maker of the stuff. The landscape guy. The landscape guys landlord (really). the supplier of the stuff. The home owner (wife and husband). I might have missed someone, sorry.
Ins co settled for $20,000, he had sued for $500k. He was not hurt because he finished delivering all the stuff and claimed the first item hurt him. Claimed could not work anymore, could not get it up anymore, could not sleep for long anymore, moved to Tx for his health. He was a real deadbeat.
Appliances is what the stuff was. I got notified 1 day shy of the deadline.
Every time I read one of these stories I count my blessings while feeling a little shiver go up and down my spine. Like the ghosts of all those who have died from temporary repairs that were never torn down and rebuilt properly.
My answer for repairs of that kind is to only do them for cash, completely off the books. No checks, no receipts for materials, nothing in writing.*
Before I agree to make a temporary fix, I tell the client/friend/neighbor that it's their repair and their responsibility. And I give him/her a time table for coming up with the money to rebuild properly.
*Edit: Although it hasn't come up yet, no Emails or text messages either! If I received such a message about a repair job, I'd send a written replay saying that I didn't have time to get involved. Then I'd call to find out what they wanted.
Edited 8/3/2008 8:57 am by Hudson Valley Carpenter
$80,000 for a broken leg? What did she have, a gold plated cast?
Here's a lawyer's perspective:
You are a contractor. You go to look at a deck, you see it's unsafe and needs to be replaced. You tell the HO this. HO says "No, just do some cosmetics so it looks good."
(S)he's the boss, so you do it. Some other person later goes on the deck, that looks just fine, thanks to your "camouflage" work, the deck collapses, and (s)he is injured. (S)he comes to me, Joe Attorney, and wants to sue someone. Of course I tell him/her to sue the homeowner for having an unsafe deck and not warning people to stay off, AND the contractor who did the "repair" for failing to properly repair the structure to a safe condition. (You can pretty much guarantee that the HO told the injured party "Gee, don't sue me -- I just had Joe Contractor fix that deck and I thought it was properly repaired." Here's a surprise -- People lie for money. All the time!)
In fact, there is a good argument that the contractor is *more* at fault than the homeowner because he had the knowledge and experience to better know the seriousness and potential consequences of his actions.
Best course of action: Refuse to do any work that leaves an unsafe condition behind.
Second best: Prepare a written bid, clearly stating ALL the work needed, that unless it's ALL done, an unsafe condition will exist that MUST be corrected by the HO, and that HO agrees to do so promptly. Save the bid, preferably signed by the HO, for later use in court. (You'll still get sued, but you have a much better chance of winning.)
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
so, mike.. just curious as to your take on the strategy of working for cash so no trail is left ?Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Working for cash doesn't seem invisible to me. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
If you mean working for cash, and in disguise so the HO could never find you again, it might just keep you from having the word "Defendant" show up after your name. (But, seeing as you're so famous, it won't work for you. ;-) )
Without documentation putting the blame squarely on the HO who was too cheap to do it right, you're in the crosshairs if they ever find you. And a jury will probably believe the poor, innocent (albeit lying) HO over some rich, insured contractor who, of course, "scammed the poor HO and is now trying to save his butt."
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Little update, saw my buddy for a minute this morn, he said the lady that owned the house.. her homeowners is suing him. He turned it over to his contractors insurance and went to the lawyer. His lawyer said he was 3d party and it was a frivolous lawsuit.Sum was medical and lost wages and pain and suffering.His lawyer said this is the reason why insurance is so high and the courts are full of this kind of stuff. His lawyer said if it got anywhere he could countersue
Why is the GC designated as an expert in faulty deck construction? Contractors construct designs prepared by trained professionals such as architects and engineers. The product is approved by building officials. Unless one is specifically trained as a deck inspector, the GC is just relying on his own experience which may or may not be valid.May not be true in the real world, just thought I would look at it from a different angle.John