Sometimes cracks and hairline cracks appear in homes which we consider to be structural damage.
Although a technical expert should inspect them, their causes are sometimes due to excessive deflection of the floor slabs, beyond permissible limits.
The technical professionals are liable for this damage, because it originates in the incorrect sizing of the structure and/or the wrong choice of structural system, combined with inadequate supervision of the works. And this damage is covered by the 10-year structural insurance (seguro decenal).
All this may also be linked to the unsuitable choice of structural system, because if, for example, a reinforced flat slab was chosen to build a small residential building, a type of floor slab used for large areas such as shopping centres or car parks, then that structural system carries excessive self-weight, which increases its deformation, all the more so in homes with traditional partitions.
Technically, the hairline cracking and cracking in the various areas of the building is due to the flexibility of the horizontal structure. In other words, the excessive deformation of the reinforced concrete floor slab as a whole produces an active deflection (an arch) greater than that which would keep the building elements intact. That is how the problem arises .
To check and confirm that the damage is structural, it is essential to prove that the damage has NOT stabilised and that the cracks are active. How is this checked? With crack monitors or tell-tales (made of plaster, glass, plastic…), which must be installed and read by qualified staff. The more readings over time, the better.
If the readings show that the cracks are widening, they compromise the mechanical strength and stability of the building, since while the cracks are active the structure is not stable, a situation that clearly compromises its mechanical strength, making it a priority to intervene in the building’s structure to stop the movement.
But to complicate matters, also at times, at the trial the DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS (wrongly, but it happens), since this is not part of their legitimate right of defence, while acknowledging the cracks and cracking, try to clear the people who commissioned their report (the architect and the 10-year insurer) of all liability. And they will always reject the crack monitor readings ordered by the owners, but they WILL NOT INSTALL ANY TELL-TALES OF THEIR OWN.
They will state that the damage has stabilised without any evidence to justify it (they will not install crack monitors, and will only look at those installed by the expert for the homeowner or injured party). Nor will they see, or want to see, despite being invited to do so, the various crack monitor readings, since they believe, by some innate knowledge, that these are insignificant.
However, at trial they usually admit that the owners told them they painted over the cracks and the cracks came back. The expert for the architects or for the developer or building contractor will only speak of hairline cracks (not cracks) to minimise the damage, whatever they see. And if they are made to look at the tell-tales, they will acknowledge some movement, but play it down.
In their reports they will record “supposed” results, but will not provide any photograph to confirm that the crack monitor movement really is as stated. If they record the readings in a second report, they will minimise the results. And, as it happens, they will present the court with photos taken from a distance and at an angle, in which the movement cannot be seen properly.
On other occasions, the architects’ defence argues that the hairline cracks or cracks are within “the standard”. But that argument is not acceptable, because everyone knows that not all buildings suffer this kind of cracking, from which it follows that such defects are avoidable if the design is correct, THE ARCHITECT’S LIABILITY BEING DETERMINED NOT BY WHAT THE STANDARD LAYS DOWN, BUT BY THE FAILURE TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE MOVEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE THAT MAY CAUSE CRACKS.
The Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Section 8) recently stated, in its judgment no. 366/2017 of 18/09/2017, that once the damage has been proved, they must be held liable, because otherwise this would amount to accepting as natural the widespread cracking of a new build without any liability being attributed, and that, in order to be cleared, the defendants must prove that the damage was due to an unforeseeable event, force majeure, the act of a third party or the injured party’s own act.
It is very rare for the opposing expert (for the architects, the developer, the building contractor or the insurer) to concede that the injured party’s expert is right; that is why the lawsuit is always an all-out battle to obtain fair compensation for the owner or owners who have bought their home only to find it cracked. But fortunately there are also honest architects, and impartial forensic architects who say what they see and do not minimise the damage. That is not to say the others are dishonest; it is simply that their invoices are paid by the insurance companies, and they are grateful.
Any questions?