Preview
FILED
12/12/2023 4:52 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Debra Clark DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885
CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
Vv
BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
BMC Texas Sales, LLC,
SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC d/b/a
Richardson Timbers,
RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC
Defendants. 134" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION
Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr. files this Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition and
tespectfully shows the Court:
I
DISCOVERY LEVEL (Level 3)
1 Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3 of Rule 190.4
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in accordance with the Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3)
signed by this court on April 20, 2023.
IL.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
2. Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr. (““Wood”) is a natural person residing in Dallas
County, Texas.
3 Defendants BFS Texas Sales, L.L.C., f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. (“BFS” or
“Builders First”) has already been served and has filed an answer in this lawsuit. Plaintiff
originally also named Builders First Source Dallas, L.L.C. (“Builders Dallas”) as a party
defendant; however, based on the representations of BFS and Builder Dallas, BFS is the correct
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 1
defendant based on the transactions and occurrences described in Plaintiff's petition. BFS may be
served with a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its
counsel of record Ian M. McLin in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.
4 Defendant Sawmill Partners, L.L.C., d/b/a Richardson Timbers (“Sawmill”) has
already been served and filed an answer in this lawsuit. Sawmill may be served with a copy of
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its counsel of record Mark
Senter and Ciera Norris in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
5 Defendant Ridgeview Timberworks, L.L.C. (“Ridgeview”) has already been served
and filed an answer in this lawsuit. Ridgeview may be served with a copy of Plaintiff's First
Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its counsel of record Wesson H. Tribble,
Dan McManus, Jimmy Smith, and Russell Hems in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Ti.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the
Texas Constitution and Section 24.007 of the Texas Government Code because the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
7 This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties as set forth hereinabove.
8 Venue in Dallas County is proper in this cause pursuant to Section 17.56 of the
Texas Business and Commerce Code and under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this
lawsuit occurred in Dallas County. Specifically, Defendants delivered defective goods to Plaintiff
in Dallas County and the goods that Defendants provided failed in Dallas County, Texas.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 2
Iv.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in this case Plaintiff
seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000.
Vv.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUIT
10. Pursuant to Rule 54 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, all conditions precedent
to Plaintiff's right to recover on their claims herein have been performed or have occurred, or
Defendants are estopped from asserting or have waived the right to assert that conditions precedent
to the bringing of these claims have not been met. The RCLA Demand Letter was served on
Defendants on November 16, 2022. Plaintiff served a DTPA demand letter on Defendants on
January 5, 2023.
Vi.
FACTS
11. This is a construction defect case involving the collapse of an outdoor Plaza
Structure while it was under construction during a typical November rainstorm. The structure
collapsed because of defects in the timber roof trusses designed, engineered, manufactured, and
provided by the Defendants for which they were collectively paid $101,770. A second Plaza
Structure became structurally unsafe because of the same defects and ultimately had to be
removed.
12. Wood owns a home located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. Wood
retained Bella Estates 1, Inc. (“Bella”) to assist him in constructing the two identical freestanding
plaza structures in the backyard of the home (the “Plaza Structure Project”). Wood wanted these
two structures (the “Plaza Structures”) to aesthetically match a pre-existing show car garage in
certain respects.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 3
13. DeFord Lumber Company (“DeFord’”) was a leading Texas-based provider of
building materials and structural components, including roof trusses, primarily to custom
residential builders in the DFW area since 1964. Bella’s superintendent, Truett Hunt (“Hunt”),
was familiar with DeFord from his years of experience in the DFW residential construction market.
14. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. (“BMC”), a leading provider of diversified building
products nationally, acquired DeFord in 2019 and continued to operate it using the DeFord name
as part of a subsidiary named BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. Builders FirstSource, Inc., a national
manufacturer and supplier of building materials, merged with BMC in January 2021. Following
the merger, BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. amended its registration to change its legal name to BFS
Texas Sales, L.L.C., in August 2022. Through these transactions, DeFord became part of
Defendant BFS.
1S. Tn 2021, Hunt was already working for Wood on a pergola and outdoor kitchen for
his home. Hunt contacted Emilio Cantu (“Cantu”), a sales representative who had worked with
DeFord for ten years prior to its acquisition by BMC, for the lumber and other building materials
associated with that project.
16. When the Plaza Structure Project arose, Bella retained architect Jay Peskuski with
the Peskuski Design Firm to prepare a basic architectural drawing showing the elevations,
dimensions, and roof of the two planned structures (the “A-1 Drawing”). Bella hired engineer
Matthew Skaggs of Skaggs Engineering to prepare a preliminary engineering drawing for the roof
framing plan for the two structures. (the “S-1 Drawing”) Skaggs expressly noted on his S-1
Drawing that another party would need to provide the structural engineering for the trusses to
support the roof of the Plaza Structures.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 4
17. Toward the end of February 2022, Hunt reached out to Cantu regarding the Plaza
Structure Project. Hunt hired BFS, the company Cantu was working for and which was still using
the DeFord name, to supply building materials, including the roof trusses, for the Plaza Structure
Project. Because Skaggs had specifically notated his S-1 Drawing, Hunt hired BFS to design,
engineer and supply the trusses necessary to construct the Plaza Structures. Hunt provided the A-
1 Drawing and the S-1 Drawing to Cantu but specifically advised Cantu that certain elements on
the plans should be changed unless BFS determined that they shouldn’t be.
18. Although the S-1 Drawing indicates 2” x 6” rafters, Hunt indicated that it would be
great to increase the size of the rafters to 2” x 8” if BFS felt they could be, and that in any event,
he would like to go to a true two inches. The actual dimensions! of a 2x6 are 1.50” x 5.50”.
Notwithstanding that the S-1 Drawing only showed two roof trusses, Hunt told Cantu that he
wanted to incorporate a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure where a ceiling fan or
light fixture might hang. Finally, Hunt told Cantu that he wanted the rafter tails cut into a special
shape to match the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage. Hunt sent Cantu photographs of these
rafter tails, and Cantu visited Wood’s home in part to personally view the rafter tails. All of these
details were important to BFS’s services in designing and engineering the trusses.
19. Plaintiff understands that BFS subcontracted with Sawmill to supply and construct
the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. Jamie Hursh (“Hursch”) of Sawmill
also visited Wood’s home to personally gather whatever information Sawmill needed for the goods
and services it was providing for the Plaza Structure Project. Plaintiff understands that Sawmill
subcontracted with Ridgeview to design, engineer, and build the trusses for the Plaza Structures.
Phil Grindstaff (“Grindstaff’) of Ridgeview also visited Wood’s home to personally obtain
! The nominal size of lumber does not match its actual dimensions at the time of sale. Before it is sold, dimensional
lumber is dried and planed to make it smooth and that process removes some of the original material.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 5
whatever information Ridgeview needed for the goods and services it was providing for the Plaza
Structure Project.
20. On multiple occasions, Cantu advised Hunt that the reason the trusses were taking
so long was that the design and engineering people had to make sure the trusses were engineered
and built properly so they could handle the load required for the Plaza Structures. Before the
building materials for the Plaza Structures were delivered, Hunt left the project to return to building
homes again and was replaced by Daniel Zipperlen (“Zipperlen”). Hunt advised Cantu of the
change. Grindstaff advised Zipperlen that Ridgeview was designing, engineering, and
manufacturing the trusses for the Plaza Structures.
Zia With respect to increasing the size of the rafters to 2” x 8” and going to a true two
inches, BFS and Sawmill determined that the rafter size could be increased and that they should
use “true” 2x8s rather than nominal 2x8s. In pricing the lumber for the project, Hursch sent a
quote to BFS for 56 3x10 pieces of lumber sawn to 2x8s for the rafters which BFS incorporated
into its original estimate, using the DeFord name, dated March 16, 2022. Sawmill contacted
Ridgeview on or about April 4, 2022, regarding the Plaza Structure Project by forwarding the A-
1 Drawing and the S-1 Drawing, followed by a telephone conversation between Hursch and
Grindstaff. Ridgeview maintains that it was not told Sawmill and/or BFS had made the decision
to increase the rafter size. Ridgeview did, however, visit Wood’s home during the construction of
the Plaza Structures and could have readily seen by visual inspection of the material that
Defendants supplied “true” 2x8s rather than nominal 2x6s for the rafters.
Dee With respect to incorporating a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure,
BFS relayed this information to Sawmill. In pricing the lumber for the project, Hursch sent a quote
to BFS for six 4x8x8s for the arch chords and twelve 4x8x 16s for the trusses, which is the quantity
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 6
required for three trusses per structure, which BFS incorporated into the original DeFord estimate.
In June 2022, before the trusses had been delivered, Zipperlin had a conversation with Grindstaff
in which Grindstaff indicated that Ridgeview was only providing two trusses per structure instead
of three. When questioned about this change, Cantu indicated that the decision to use two trusses
per structure instead of three was made by whomever designed the trusses which—in Cantu’s
mind—was Sawmill because that it was who BFS cut the PO to. Ridgeview maintains that it was
never told that three trusses had been requested and quoted for the Plaza Structure Project. Indeed,
on April 6, 2022, Sawmill sent Ridgeview a quote specifically for “Material for 4 trusses.”
Ridge
&
King Post
Temporary Shoring/Bracing Arched Chord (Tie-beam)
Top Chord (Rafter Chord)
Header
on
roy
aa
be
— mare — Pi
i
Labelled Parts of aRoof Truss
23. Neither the A-1 Drawing nor the S-1 Drawing indicate the dimensions of the top
chord of the trusses for the Plaza Structures. Upon information and belief, after Hunt hired BFS
through Cantu, someone employed by BFS or Sawmill created a drawing calling for 4x8 top chords
for the trusses of the Plaza Structures. Originally, Sawmill quoted twelve 4x8x16s for the trusses,
which BFS incorporated into the original DeFord estimate in March 2022. Sawmill also sent a
quote to Ridgeview in early April for lumber cut to true 4x8x16s for the trusses. Grindstaff had
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 7
this drawing calling for 4x8 top chords at the end of April. Despite months of discovery in this
case, neither BFS nor Sawmill nor Ridgeview has produced a drawing which calls for 4x8 top
chords.
24. With respect to the rafter tails, Cantu acknowledges that BFS was asked and agreed
to cut the rafter tails of the trusses in a special pattern to match the rafter tails of the pre-existing
garage. BFS and/or Ridgeview had that particular pattern because it had provided the decorative
trusses used in the show car garage. Ridgeview maintains that it was never told to cut the rafter
tails in any pattern. Cutting the rafter tails in the pattern requested would not affect the structural
integrity of the trusses in any way.
peep
Rafter Tail
25. Although Ridgeview insists that it hired and paid RTP Structural, P.L.L.C. (“RTP”)
to design and engineer the trusses, RTP did not, in fact, design and engineer the trusses and, based
on the past course of dealing between Ridgeview and RTP, Ridgeview did not hire and did not pay
RTP for such engineering services with respect to the Plaza Structure Project. Grindstaff did,
however, communicate briefly by email with Ralph Trent Perkins (“Perkins”) of RTP concerning
the size of the top chords for the trusses. Grindstaff claims that he told Sawmill 4” x 8” top chords
would not carry the load and requested Perkins input on whether increasing the size of the top
chords to 8” x 12” would work. Grindstaff provided Perkins with a shop drawing Grindstaff had
made using 8” x 12” top chords. Perkins replied, “Based on my calculations, we need 8x14’s.”
Accordingly, Grindstaff made a second shop drawing using 8” x 14” top chords. Ridgeview then
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 8
proceeded to manufacture the roof trusses for the Plaza Structures using Grindstaff’s second shop
drawing.
26. With respect to the seat cut, where the truss connects to the abe
header, Grindstaff indicates a 5-'2” seat cut. Even his son, Scott, testifying f
as the designated representative of Ridgeview, initially interpreted this Se
notation as meaning that the seat cut should be 5-2” wide and 5-2” deep. However, because the
roof of the Plaza Structures is not designed to slope at a 45° angle, but rather a slope of 8 : 12 as
indicated in the A-1 Drawing and in Grindstaff’s second shop drawing, a seat cut cannot be 5-4”
wide and 5-/2” deep if the truss is to sit level on the header.
Die Neither the A-1 Drawing nor the S-1 Drawing specify the type of connectors to be
used to connect the arch chord to the top chords of the trusses. Grindstaff’s original shop
drawing—the one he sent to Perkins—similarly does not indicate the type of connectors to be used.
In both of Ridgeview’s estimates to Sawmill, however, Ridgeview specifies that the connectors
for the Plaza Structures trusses would be “mortise & tenon joints.” In his second shop drawing,
however, Grindstaff specifies that the connectors will be six ¥s” x 12” screws.
Ga
a i
a}
VS
ww
ged +B
ahr
Re oa
Mortise & Tenon Joinery Ridgeview 000123
28. The beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project were delivered to
Wood’s home in July 2022. Defendants delivered trusses which had not been engineered at all.
Defendants delivered only four trusses, each with an arch chord connected by six screws to an 8”
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 9
x 14” top chord without rafter tails cut in the pattern requested and with seat cuts that did not allow
the top chord to sit level on the headers. Neither BFS nor Sawmill nor Ridgeview performed any
calculations to determine how the load capacity of the trusses was affected by the BFS and
Sawmill’s determination that the rafter size could be increased to “true” 2x8 rafters instead of
nominal 2x6s as originally specified in the preliminary plans.
298 BFS invoiced and Wood paid BFS the sum of $101,770 for designing, engineering
and manufacturing the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. Thereafter,
subcontractors began constructing the Plaza Structures using the beams, rafters, and trusses
delivered by Defendants. Ridgeview visited the Wood home during construction. Because the
rafter tails had not been cut in the pattern requested and the seat cuts did not allow the top chord
to sit level on the headers, field modifications were made. The Plaza Structures were in the process
of being constructed, but were not yet completed, on November 4, 2022.
30. On Friday, November 4, 2022, the North Plaza Structure collapsed, and the South
Plaza Structure became structurally unsafe when the trusses supplied by the Defendants failed.
Plaintiffs retained an engineer to investigate the failure, and the engineer’s investigation
determined that the North Plaza Structure collapsed, and the South Plaza structure failed, because
arch chords failed where they connect to the top chords:
STSSs SY
a
es
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 10
The engineer concluded that the arch chords were not adequate to support the load from the ridge
beam and to resist the outward thrust applied at the plate lines:
a HE +
HE
{Tt
Et Wis
Cot ry a ge
le Le me ge
58
H 30) ‘et te NW BD
PAI e- fF ft
ak Nt
to a
I
|
— Ci
+
wk
ae
Cl
Pe
te
be
HE I|
ptt
PEELE yt
tf F a EECCoere
Fo
LI
ere
Cet Try
+e {tt
oe
fiiiijt
t al
rt Ltt
ial
ree ls
PT PA
ry
1 - HH reo +f +4 44
In short, Defendants did not properly design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses.
31 Plaintiff had bracing installed to prevent the South Plaza Structure from collapsing
so that it could be inspected by the Defendants. Plaintiff notified BFS of the collapse on November
9, 2022, and asked BFS to inspect and evaluate the failure. BFS ignored Plaintiff's November 9.
2022 request for assistance in investigating and analyzing the cause of the Plaza Structure failures
In accordance with Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code, Wood had his attorney send written
notice of a construction defect claim on his behalf, inviting BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview to
inspect and evaluate the failure, and requesting that Defendants amicably resolve the matter.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 11
Despite inspecting the Plaza Structures, Defendants did not offer any solutions. After providing
Defendants with an opportunity to inspect and examine the collapsed and unstable Plaza
Structures, Plaintiffs removed the North Plaza Structure debris from the property and
deconstructed and removed the South Plaza Structure from the property.
32. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omission, Wood has been damaged in the
amount of $363,799.96. Plaintiffhas provided detailed calculations and supporting documentation
of these economic damages to Defendants in discovery in this case. In addition to these economic
damages, Wood has suffered mental anguish in the past, and will continue to suffer mental anguish
in the future, as a result of the collapse of the Plaza Structures.
33. In addition to the above actual damages, it was necessary for Wood to hire William
E. Reid and John M. Frick of the law firm Reid, Dennis & Frick, P.C. to investigate and prosecute
this lawsuit on his behalf. Wood has agreed to pay reasonable hour fees to these attorneys
consistent with the usual and customary fees charged by attorneys in this type of case in Dallas
County, Texas.
Vil.
CAUSE OF ACTION
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
33. Wood is a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”)
because Wood sought and acquired goods and services by purchase from Defendants BFS,
Sawmill and Ridgeview. Defendants’ misrepresentations and their failure to design, engineer and
manufacture the beams, rafters and trusses as promised violates the DTPA and was a producing
cause of Plaintiffs’ economic damages. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41 ef. seq. (Vernon
1987). Defendants engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 12
omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act (Texas
Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.41, et seq.), as alleged herein below.
34. Unconscionable Action or Course of Action. Defendants BFS, Sawmill and
Ridgeview engaged in an "unconscionable action or course of action" as that term is defined by
Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, by taking advantage of the lack of
knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of Plaintiff to a grossly unfair degree.
35. Violations of Section 17.46(b). Defendants’ acts and/or omissions violate Section
17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, specifically including but not limited to:
a. representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses, benefits, or
qualities or quantities which they do not have;
b, representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or
grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
c failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which known
at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce the consumer into a
transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information
been disclosed; and
d representing that a guarantee or warranty confers rights or remedies which
it does not have or involve.
36. Breach_of Warranties. Defendants have breached implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and good and workmanlike performance and
service. Defendants breached the following implied warranties:
i Implied warranty to modify existing tangible goods in a good and
workmanlike manner. Melody Home Mfg. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d
349, 354 (Tex. 1987);
il Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose under § 2.315 of the TEX.
Bus. & CoM. CODE; and
iii. Implied warranty of merchantability under § 2.314 of the TEx. Bus. &
Com. CODE.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 13
Defendants also breached their express warranty that the trusses for the Plaza Structure would be
engineered.
37. Unconscionable_Action. Defendants’ actions are unconscionable and took
advantage of the Wood’s disparity in knowledge, ability, experience, and capacity to a grossly
unfair degree.
38. Reliance. The acts, conduct, practices and/or omissions of Defendants and
complained of under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied
upon by Wood to his detriment.
39. Producing Cause. The acts, conduct, practices and/or omissions complained of
onstitute false, misleading, and deceptive actors or practices in violation of the Deceptive Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act and were the producing cause of Plaintif’s damages more
fully described herein.
40. Knowingly. The false, misleading, and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions
complained of herein were committed knowingly in that Defendants had actual awareness, at the
time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of the act or
practice giving rise to Wood’s claim or, with respect to Wood’s claim for breach of express and
implied warranties, actual awareness of the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure constituting
the breach of warranty. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for mental anguish
and not more than three times the amount of his economic damages as provided by 17.50(b)(1) of
the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
41. Defendants’ acts and omissions as set forth above and constitute breaches of
express and implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and good and
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 14
workmanlike performance and service under common law and under the Texas Business and
Commerce Code. To the extent Defendants continue to insist that they disclaimed warranties,
Plaintiff pleads that he did not have actual knowledge of any such disclaimer and that any
disclaimer was not conspicuous. Defendants’ breaches have caused and continue to cause injury
and damage to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek recovery.
NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION, SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & HIRING
42. Negligence claims are also asserted by Wood. Defendants had a duty to exercise
the care, skill and competence that reasonably competent contractors would exercise under similar
circumstances in constructing, supervising and inspecting the beams, rafters and trusses that were
supplied to the Woods to construct the Plaza Structures. The Plaza Structures involved in this case
were not complex structures and could have been designed, engineered and constructed had
Defendants applied the appropriate standard of care necessary to supervise, inspect and construct
similar beams, rafters and trusses. Defendants breached their duty to exercise that care, and
therefore, were negligent in the performance of their scope of work and in providing their goods
and services to Plaintiff. Defendants’ negligent supervision, inspection, design, engineering and
construction has caused damage to Plaintiff, including but not limited to the costs and expenses of
replacing the Plaza structures, removing the debris and the delay that has been caused in
completing renovations of Wood’s home.
43. BFS had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting Sawmill as an independent
contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. Sawmill had a duty to use reasonable
care in selecting Ridgeview as an independent contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the
trusses. BFS and Sawmill breached this duty by failing to ensure that a licensed professional
engineer was hired to perform the necessary engineering calculations and design work. Ridgeview
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 15
similarly had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting RTP and Perkins, if it did, as an independent
contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. Ridgeview breached this duty by
failing to ensure that RTP and Perkins were actually selected and engaged to perform the necessary
engineering calculations and design work.
44, Defendants’ negligent acts and/or omissions have caused other and additional
property damage outside the scope of work and work product of Defendants in that the failure
damaged framing, concrete, masonry and other components of the Plaza Structure that were not
provided by Defendants. Plaintiff seeks recovery for such property damage, including but not
limited to reasonable and necessary repairs to these additional components resulting from
Defendants’ negligence. Defendants’ negligence damaged portions of Wood’s property that was
not included in Defendants’ scope of work or the products provided by Defendants.
45. Defendants’ actions and inactions set out herein occurred in such a manner as to
constitute gross negligence. Defendants’ actions, inactions, and omissions, when viewed
objectively from Defendants’ standpoint at the time at issue, involved an extreme degree of risk,
onsidering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, including Plaintiff and
his guests. Defendants also had actual subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless
proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and/or welfare of others. Accordingly,
the acts and omissions of Defendants justify and support an award of exemplary damages to
Plaintiff as provided by Section 41.003(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
46. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all knew that their contracts with each other were
directly for Wood’s benefit and intended to confer a direct benefit on Wood by improving his
property. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all knew that Bella, Hunt, and Zipperlin were all acting
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 16
for the direct benefit of Wood and that payment to them for their goods and services would come
from Wood himself directly, not through Bella. It was clearly apparent from the contracts
themselves that they were intended to benefit Wood.
47. BFS was contracted to supply building materials and to design, engineer and
manufacture the trusses for the Plaza Structures. BFS was specifically contracted to determine
whether the size of the rafters could be increased to true 2x8s instead of nominal 2x6s, to
incorporate a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure, to cut the rafter tails cut into a
special shape to match the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage, and to design and engineer the
trusses accordingly.
48. BFS subcontracted with Sawmill to supply building materials and to design,
engineer and manufacture the trusses for the Plaza Structures. In accordance with their agreement,
BFS and/or Sawmill did determine that the size of the rafters could be increased to true 2x8s
instead of nominal 2x6s. Sawmill subcontracted with Ridgeview to design, engineer, and build
trusses for the Plaza Structures. Sawmill either determined—with or without input from
Ridgeview in a telephone conversation—that a third truss could not be incorporated into the middle
of each Plaza Structure, or simply failed to design, engineer and manufacture three trusses for each
of the Plaza Structures. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview failed to cut the rafter tails to match the
shape of the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage. Ridgeview failed to properly make the seat
cuts on the top chords of the trusses to fit into the headers so that the trusses would sit level and
failed to use mortise and tenon joinery as it agreed to do.
49. Most significantly, BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all failed to engineer the trusses
and failed to provide trusses for the Plaza Structures that were designed, engineered, and
manufactured to support the roof of each Plaza Structure.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 17
50. The actions and omissions of Defendants BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview constitute
breaches of contract which directly caused Plaintiff's damages and for which Plaintiff now sues.
BFS accepted payment for the goods and services provided by BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview
directly from Wood.
VIL.
ATTORNEY FEES
51. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred
by or on behalf of Plaintiff, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as
provided by Section 17.50(d) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 38 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and common law.
IX.
DAMAGES
52. Plaintiffs seeks all damages to which he is entitled including but not limited to
actual damages, incidental and consequential damages, economic and non-economic damages
including mental anguish, punitive damages, exemplary damages, and statutory damages available
under statutory and common law, as well as the recovery of attorney fees.
Xx.
NOTICE OF INTENT UNDER RULE 193.7
53. Plaintiff gives notice of his intent to utilize items produced in discovery by BFS,
Sawmill, and Ridgeview in pre-trial proceedings and at trial pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 193.7.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that
Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause,
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 18
judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, for:
(a) actual direct and consequential damages in an amount above $250,000 but
less than $1,000,000;
(b) damages for Charles David Wood Jr.’s lost time spent attempting to remove
and replace the Plaza Structures;
(©) statutory, treble and/or exemplary damages;
(d) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees;
(e) litigation expenses under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 27.01;
(f) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed
by law;
(g) costs of court; and
(h) such other and further relied to which Plaintiff may be entitled at law or
equity.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William E. Reid
WILLIAM E. REID (lead counsel)
State Bar No. 16748500
wreid@reiddennis.com
edocsnotifications@, reiddennis.com
JOHN M. FRICK
State Bar No. 07455200
ifrick@reiddennis.con
REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C.
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
Frisco, Texas 75034
T: 214 618-1400
F: 214 618-1653
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the
following counsel of record on this the 12" day of December, 2023 in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure:
/s/ William E. Reid
William E. Reid
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 20
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Chandra Rodriguez on behalf of John Frick
Bar No. 7455200
crodriguez@reiddennis.com
Envelope ID: 82506652
Filing Code Description: Amended Petition
Filing Description: PLTS SECOND
Status as of 12/13/2023 8:25 AM CST
Associated Case Party: CHARLESDAVIDWOOD
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
WILLIAM EREID wreid@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
A Tubbs atubbs@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Reid Dennis edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
John Frick jfrick@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
lan McLin imclin@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Maureen Purcell mpurcell@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Shawn Selvidge sselvidge@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Ethan Bannister ebannister@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Katie Ingram kingram@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Mark S.Senter msenter@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
E-Service Resnick & Louis mail@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Holly Polson hpolson@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Ciera Norris cnorris@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS, LLC
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Chandra Rodriguez on behalf of John Frick
Bar No. 7455200
crodriguez@reiddennis.com
Envelope ID: 82506652
Filing Code Description: Amended Petition
Filing Description: PLTS SECOND
Status as of 12/13/2023 8:25 AM CST
Associated Case Party: RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS, LLC
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Dan McManus dmcmanus@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Denise Gonzalez dgonzalez@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Russell Hems rhems@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Cilvia Velasquez cvelasquez@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Wesson Tribble wtribble@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Jimmy Smith jsmith@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 12/12/2023 4:52 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Debra Clark DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-02885 CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, Vv BFS TEXAS SALES, LLC f/k/a DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS BMC Texas Sales, LLC, SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC d/b/a Richardson Timbers, RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS LLC Defendants. 134" JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr. files this Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition and tespectfully shows the Court: I DISCOVERY LEVEL (Level 3) 1 Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 3 of Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in accordance with the Uniform Scheduling Order (Level 3) signed by this court on April 20, 2023. IL. PARTIES AND SERVICE 2. Plaintiff Charles David Wood, Jr. (““Wood”) is a natural person residing in Dallas County, Texas. 3 Defendants BFS Texas Sales, L.L.C., f/k/a BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. (“BFS” or “Builders First”) has already been served and has filed an answer in this lawsuit. Plaintiff originally also named Builders First Source Dallas, L.L.C. (“Builders Dallas”) as a party defendant; however, based on the representations of BFS and Builder Dallas, BFS is the correct PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 1 defendant based on the transactions and occurrences described in Plaintiff's petition. BFS may be served with a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its counsel of record Ian M. McLin in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Defendant Sawmill Partners, L.L.C., d/b/a Richardson Timbers (“Sawmill”) has already been served and filed an answer in this lawsuit. Sawmill may be served with a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its counsel of record Mark Senter and Ciera Norris in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 Defendant Ridgeview Timberworks, L.L.C. (“Ridgeview”) has already been served and filed an answer in this lawsuit. Ridgeview may be served with a copy of Plaintiff's First Amended Petition by serving a copy of the pleading on its counsel of record Wesson H. Tribble, Dan McManus, Jimmy Smith, and Russell Hems in accordance with Rule 21(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Ti. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and Section 24.007 of the Texas Government Code because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 7 This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties as set forth hereinabove. 8 Venue in Dallas County is proper in this cause pursuant to Section 17.56 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code and under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Dallas County. Specifically, Defendants delivered defective goods to Plaintiff in Dallas County and the goods that Defendants provided failed in Dallas County, Texas. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 2 Iv. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9 Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in this case Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. Vv. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUIT 10. Pursuant to Rule 54 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, all conditions precedent to Plaintiff's right to recover on their claims herein have been performed or have occurred, or Defendants are estopped from asserting or have waived the right to assert that conditions precedent to the bringing of these claims have not been met. The RCLA Demand Letter was served on Defendants on November 16, 2022. Plaintiff served a DTPA demand letter on Defendants on January 5, 2023. Vi. FACTS 11. This is a construction defect case involving the collapse of an outdoor Plaza Structure while it was under construction during a typical November rainstorm. The structure collapsed because of defects in the timber roof trusses designed, engineered, manufactured, and provided by the Defendants for which they were collectively paid $101,770. A second Plaza Structure became structurally unsafe because of the same defects and ultimately had to be removed. 12. Wood owns a home located at 5518 Winston Court, Dallas, Texas 75220. Wood retained Bella Estates 1, Inc. (“Bella”) to assist him in constructing the two identical freestanding plaza structures in the backyard of the home (the “Plaza Structure Project”). Wood wanted these two structures (the “Plaza Structures”) to aesthetically match a pre-existing show car garage in certain respects. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 3 13. DeFord Lumber Company (“DeFord’”) was a leading Texas-based provider of building materials and structural components, including roof trusses, primarily to custom residential builders in the DFW area since 1964. Bella’s superintendent, Truett Hunt (“Hunt”), was familiar with DeFord from his years of experience in the DFW residential construction market. 14. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. (“BMC”), a leading provider of diversified building products nationally, acquired DeFord in 2019 and continued to operate it using the DeFord name as part of a subsidiary named BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. Builders FirstSource, Inc., a national manufacturer and supplier of building materials, merged with BMC in January 2021. Following the merger, BMC Texas Sales, L.L.C. amended its registration to change its legal name to BFS Texas Sales, L.L.C., in August 2022. Through these transactions, DeFord became part of Defendant BFS. 1S. Tn 2021, Hunt was already working for Wood on a pergola and outdoor kitchen for his home. Hunt contacted Emilio Cantu (“Cantu”), a sales representative who had worked with DeFord for ten years prior to its acquisition by BMC, for the lumber and other building materials associated with that project. 16. When the Plaza Structure Project arose, Bella retained architect Jay Peskuski with the Peskuski Design Firm to prepare a basic architectural drawing showing the elevations, dimensions, and roof of the two planned structures (the “A-1 Drawing”). Bella hired engineer Matthew Skaggs of Skaggs Engineering to prepare a preliminary engineering drawing for the roof framing plan for the two structures. (the “S-1 Drawing”) Skaggs expressly noted on his S-1 Drawing that another party would need to provide the structural engineering for the trusses to support the roof of the Plaza Structures. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 4 17. Toward the end of February 2022, Hunt reached out to Cantu regarding the Plaza Structure Project. Hunt hired BFS, the company Cantu was working for and which was still using the DeFord name, to supply building materials, including the roof trusses, for the Plaza Structure Project. Because Skaggs had specifically notated his S-1 Drawing, Hunt hired BFS to design, engineer and supply the trusses necessary to construct the Plaza Structures. Hunt provided the A- 1 Drawing and the S-1 Drawing to Cantu but specifically advised Cantu that certain elements on the plans should be changed unless BFS determined that they shouldn’t be. 18. Although the S-1 Drawing indicates 2” x 6” rafters, Hunt indicated that it would be great to increase the size of the rafters to 2” x 8” if BFS felt they could be, and that in any event, he would like to go to a true two inches. The actual dimensions! of a 2x6 are 1.50” x 5.50”. Notwithstanding that the S-1 Drawing only showed two roof trusses, Hunt told Cantu that he wanted to incorporate a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure where a ceiling fan or light fixture might hang. Finally, Hunt told Cantu that he wanted the rafter tails cut into a special shape to match the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage. Hunt sent Cantu photographs of these rafter tails, and Cantu visited Wood’s home in part to personally view the rafter tails. All of these details were important to BFS’s services in designing and engineering the trusses. 19. Plaintiff understands that BFS subcontracted with Sawmill to supply and construct the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. Jamie Hursh (“Hursch”) of Sawmill also visited Wood’s home to personally gather whatever information Sawmill needed for the goods and services it was providing for the Plaza Structure Project. Plaintiff understands that Sawmill subcontracted with Ridgeview to design, engineer, and build the trusses for the Plaza Structures. Phil Grindstaff (“Grindstaff’) of Ridgeview also visited Wood’s home to personally obtain ! The nominal size of lumber does not match its actual dimensions at the time of sale. Before it is sold, dimensional lumber is dried and planed to make it smooth and that process removes some of the original material. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 5 whatever information Ridgeview needed for the goods and services it was providing for the Plaza Structure Project. 20. On multiple occasions, Cantu advised Hunt that the reason the trusses were taking so long was that the design and engineering people had to make sure the trusses were engineered and built properly so they could handle the load required for the Plaza Structures. Before the building materials for the Plaza Structures were delivered, Hunt left the project to return to building homes again and was replaced by Daniel Zipperlen (“Zipperlen”). Hunt advised Cantu of the change. Grindstaff advised Zipperlen that Ridgeview was designing, engineering, and manufacturing the trusses for the Plaza Structures. Zia With respect to increasing the size of the rafters to 2” x 8” and going to a true two inches, BFS and Sawmill determined that the rafter size could be increased and that they should use “true” 2x8s rather than nominal 2x8s. In pricing the lumber for the project, Hursch sent a quote to BFS for 56 3x10 pieces of lumber sawn to 2x8s for the rafters which BFS incorporated into its original estimate, using the DeFord name, dated March 16, 2022. Sawmill contacted Ridgeview on or about April 4, 2022, regarding the Plaza Structure Project by forwarding the A- 1 Drawing and the S-1 Drawing, followed by a telephone conversation between Hursch and Grindstaff. Ridgeview maintains that it was not told Sawmill and/or BFS had made the decision to increase the rafter size. Ridgeview did, however, visit Wood’s home during the construction of the Plaza Structures and could have readily seen by visual inspection of the material that Defendants supplied “true” 2x8s rather than nominal 2x6s for the rafters. Dee With respect to incorporating a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure, BFS relayed this information to Sawmill. In pricing the lumber for the project, Hursch sent a quote to BFS for six 4x8x8s for the arch chords and twelve 4x8x 16s for the trusses, which is the quantity PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 6 required for three trusses per structure, which BFS incorporated into the original DeFord estimate. In June 2022, before the trusses had been delivered, Zipperlin had a conversation with Grindstaff in which Grindstaff indicated that Ridgeview was only providing two trusses per structure instead of three. When questioned about this change, Cantu indicated that the decision to use two trusses per structure instead of three was made by whomever designed the trusses which—in Cantu’s mind—was Sawmill because that it was who BFS cut the PO to. Ridgeview maintains that it was never told that three trusses had been requested and quoted for the Plaza Structure Project. Indeed, on April 6, 2022, Sawmill sent Ridgeview a quote specifically for “Material for 4 trusses.” Ridge & King Post Temporary Shoring/Bracing Arched Chord (Tie-beam) Top Chord (Rafter Chord) Header on roy aa be — mare — Pi i Labelled Parts of aRoof Truss 23. Neither the A-1 Drawing nor the S-1 Drawing indicate the dimensions of the top chord of the trusses for the Plaza Structures. Upon information and belief, after Hunt hired BFS through Cantu, someone employed by BFS or Sawmill created a drawing calling for 4x8 top chords for the trusses of the Plaza Structures. Originally, Sawmill quoted twelve 4x8x16s for the trusses, which BFS incorporated into the original DeFord estimate in March 2022. Sawmill also sent a quote to Ridgeview in early April for lumber cut to true 4x8x16s for the trusses. Grindstaff had PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 7 this drawing calling for 4x8 top chords at the end of April. Despite months of discovery in this case, neither BFS nor Sawmill nor Ridgeview has produced a drawing which calls for 4x8 top chords. 24. With respect to the rafter tails, Cantu acknowledges that BFS was asked and agreed to cut the rafter tails of the trusses in a special pattern to match the rafter tails of the pre-existing garage. BFS and/or Ridgeview had that particular pattern because it had provided the decorative trusses used in the show car garage. Ridgeview maintains that it was never told to cut the rafter tails in any pattern. Cutting the rafter tails in the pattern requested would not affect the structural integrity of the trusses in any way. peep Rafter Tail 25. Although Ridgeview insists that it hired and paid RTP Structural, P.L.L.C. (“RTP”) to design and engineer the trusses, RTP did not, in fact, design and engineer the trusses and, based on the past course of dealing between Ridgeview and RTP, Ridgeview did not hire and did not pay RTP for such engineering services with respect to the Plaza Structure Project. Grindstaff did, however, communicate briefly by email with Ralph Trent Perkins (“Perkins”) of RTP concerning the size of the top chords for the trusses. Grindstaff claims that he told Sawmill 4” x 8” top chords would not carry the load and requested Perkins input on whether increasing the size of the top chords to 8” x 12” would work. Grindstaff provided Perkins with a shop drawing Grindstaff had made using 8” x 12” top chords. Perkins replied, “Based on my calculations, we need 8x14’s.” Accordingly, Grindstaff made a second shop drawing using 8” x 14” top chords. Ridgeview then PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 8 proceeded to manufacture the roof trusses for the Plaza Structures using Grindstaff’s second shop drawing. 26. With respect to the seat cut, where the truss connects to the abe header, Grindstaff indicates a 5-'2” seat cut. Even his son, Scott, testifying f as the designated representative of Ridgeview, initially interpreted this Se notation as meaning that the seat cut should be 5-2” wide and 5-2” deep. However, because the roof of the Plaza Structures is not designed to slope at a 45° angle, but rather a slope of 8 : 12 as indicated in the A-1 Drawing and in Grindstaff’s second shop drawing, a seat cut cannot be 5-4” wide and 5-/2” deep if the truss is to sit level on the header. Die Neither the A-1 Drawing nor the S-1 Drawing specify the type of connectors to be used to connect the arch chord to the top chords of the trusses. Grindstaff’s original shop drawing—the one he sent to Perkins—similarly does not indicate the type of connectors to be used. In both of Ridgeview’s estimates to Sawmill, however, Ridgeview specifies that the connectors for the Plaza Structures trusses would be “mortise & tenon joints.” In his second shop drawing, however, Grindstaff specifies that the connectors will be six ¥s” x 12” screws. Ga a i a} VS ww ged +B ahr Re oa Mortise & Tenon Joinery Ridgeview 000123 28. The beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project were delivered to Wood’s home in July 2022. Defendants delivered trusses which had not been engineered at all. Defendants delivered only four trusses, each with an arch chord connected by six screws to an 8” PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 9 x 14” top chord without rafter tails cut in the pattern requested and with seat cuts that did not allow the top chord to sit level on the headers. Neither BFS nor Sawmill nor Ridgeview performed any calculations to determine how the load capacity of the trusses was affected by the BFS and Sawmill’s determination that the rafter size could be increased to “true” 2x8 rafters instead of nominal 2x6s as originally specified in the preliminary plans. 298 BFS invoiced and Wood paid BFS the sum of $101,770 for designing, engineering and manufacturing the beams, rafters and trusses for the Plaza Structure Project. Thereafter, subcontractors began constructing the Plaza Structures using the beams, rafters, and trusses delivered by Defendants. Ridgeview visited the Wood home during construction. Because the rafter tails had not been cut in the pattern requested and the seat cuts did not allow the top chord to sit level on the headers, field modifications were made. The Plaza Structures were in the process of being constructed, but were not yet completed, on November 4, 2022. 30. On Friday, November 4, 2022, the North Plaza Structure collapsed, and the South Plaza Structure became structurally unsafe when the trusses supplied by the Defendants failed. Plaintiffs retained an engineer to investigate the failure, and the engineer’s investigation determined that the North Plaza Structure collapsed, and the South Plaza structure failed, because arch chords failed where they connect to the top chords: STSSs SY a es PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 10 The engineer concluded that the arch chords were not adequate to support the load from the ridge beam and to resist the outward thrust applied at the plate lines: a HE + HE {Tt Et Wis Cot ry a ge le Le me ge 58 H 30) ‘et te NW BD PAI e- fF ft ak Nt to a I | — Ci + wk ae Cl Pe te be HE I| ptt PEELE yt tf F a EECCoere Fo LI ere Cet Try +e {tt oe fiiiijt t al rt Ltt ial ree ls PT PA ry 1 - HH reo +f +4 44 In short, Defendants did not properly design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. 31 Plaintiff had bracing installed to prevent the South Plaza Structure from collapsing so that it could be inspected by the Defendants. Plaintiff notified BFS of the collapse on November 9, 2022, and asked BFS to inspect and evaluate the failure. BFS ignored Plaintiff's November 9. 2022 request for assistance in investigating and analyzing the cause of the Plaza Structure failures In accordance with Chapter 27 of the Texas Property Code, Wood had his attorney send written notice of a construction defect claim on his behalf, inviting BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview to inspect and evaluate the failure, and requesting that Defendants amicably resolve the matter. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 11 Despite inspecting the Plaza Structures, Defendants did not offer any solutions. After providing Defendants with an opportunity to inspect and examine the collapsed and unstable Plaza Structures, Plaintiffs removed the North Plaza Structure debris from the property and deconstructed and removed the South Plaza Structure from the property. 32. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omission, Wood has been damaged in the amount of $363,799.96. Plaintiffhas provided detailed calculations and supporting documentation of these economic damages to Defendants in discovery in this case. In addition to these economic damages, Wood has suffered mental anguish in the past, and will continue to suffer mental anguish in the future, as a result of the collapse of the Plaza Structures. 33. In addition to the above actual damages, it was necessary for Wood to hire William E. Reid and John M. Frick of the law firm Reid, Dennis & Frick, P.C. to investigate and prosecute this lawsuit on his behalf. Wood has agreed to pay reasonable hour fees to these attorneys consistent with the usual and customary fees charged by attorneys in this type of case in Dallas County, Texas. Vil. CAUSE OF ACTION DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES 33. Wood is a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) because Wood sought and acquired goods and services by purchase from Defendants BFS, Sawmill and Ridgeview. Defendants’ misrepresentations and their failure to design, engineer and manufacture the beams, rafters and trusses as promised violates the DTPA and was a producing cause of Plaintiffs’ economic damages. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41 ef. seq. (Vernon 1987). Defendants engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 12 omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.41, et seq.), as alleged herein below. 34. Unconscionable Action or Course of Action. Defendants BFS, Sawmill and Ridgeview engaged in an "unconscionable action or course of action" as that term is defined by Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of Plaintiff to a grossly unfair degree. 35. Violations of Section 17.46(b). Defendants’ acts and/or omissions violate Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, specifically including but not limited to: a. representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities or quantities which they do not have; b, representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; c failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed; and d representing that a guarantee or warranty confers rights or remedies which it does not have or involve. 36. Breach_of Warranties. Defendants have breached implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and good and workmanlike performance and service. Defendants breached the following implied warranties: i Implied warranty to modify existing tangible goods in a good and workmanlike manner. Melody Home Mfg. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349, 354 (Tex. 1987); il Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose under § 2.315 of the TEX. Bus. & CoM. CODE; and iii. Implied warranty of merchantability under § 2.314 of the TEx. Bus. & Com. CODE. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 13 Defendants also breached their express warranty that the trusses for the Plaza Structure would be engineered. 37. Unconscionable_Action. Defendants’ actions are unconscionable and took advantage of the Wood’s disparity in knowledge, ability, experience, and capacity to a grossly unfair degree. 38. Reliance. The acts, conduct, practices and/or omissions of Defendants and complained of under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied upon by Wood to his detriment. 39. Producing Cause. The acts, conduct, practices and/or omissions complained of onstitute false, misleading, and deceptive actors or practices in violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act and were the producing cause of Plaintif’s damages more fully described herein. 40. Knowingly. The false, misleading, and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions complained of herein were committed knowingly in that Defendants had actual awareness, at the time of the act or practice complained of, of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of the act or practice giving rise to Wood’s claim or, with respect to Wood’s claim for breach of express and implied warranties, actual awareness of the act, practice, condition, defect, or failure constituting the breach of warranty. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for mental anguish and not more than three times the amount of his economic damages as provided by 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 41. Defendants’ acts and omissions as set forth above and constitute breaches of express and implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and good and PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 14 workmanlike performance and service under common law and under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. To the extent Defendants continue to insist that they disclaimed warranties, Plaintiff pleads that he did not have actual knowledge of any such disclaimer and that any disclaimer was not conspicuous. Defendants’ breaches have caused and continue to cause injury and damage to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek recovery. NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION, SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & HIRING 42. Negligence claims are also asserted by Wood. Defendants had a duty to exercise the care, skill and competence that reasonably competent contractors would exercise under similar circumstances in constructing, supervising and inspecting the beams, rafters and trusses that were supplied to the Woods to construct the Plaza Structures. The Plaza Structures involved in this case were not complex structures and could have been designed, engineered and constructed had Defendants applied the appropriate standard of care necessary to supervise, inspect and construct similar beams, rafters and trusses. Defendants breached their duty to exercise that care, and therefore, were negligent in the performance of their scope of work and in providing their goods and services to Plaintiff. Defendants’ negligent supervision, inspection, design, engineering and construction has caused damage to Plaintiff, including but not limited to the costs and expenses of replacing the Plaza structures, removing the debris and the delay that has been caused in completing renovations of Wood’s home. 43. BFS had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting Sawmill as an independent contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. Sawmill had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting Ridgeview as an independent contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. BFS and Sawmill breached this duty by failing to ensure that a licensed professional engineer was hired to perform the necessary engineering calculations and design work. Ridgeview PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 15 similarly had a duty to use reasonable care in selecting RTP and Perkins, if it did, as an independent contractor to design, engineer, and manufacture the trusses. Ridgeview breached this duty by failing to ensure that RTP and Perkins were actually selected and engaged to perform the necessary engineering calculations and design work. 44, Defendants’ negligent acts and/or omissions have caused other and additional property damage outside the scope of work and work product of Defendants in that the failure damaged framing, concrete, masonry and other components of the Plaza Structure that were not provided by Defendants. Plaintiff seeks recovery for such property damage, including but not limited to reasonable and necessary repairs to these additional components resulting from Defendants’ negligence. Defendants’ negligence damaged portions of Wood’s property that was not included in Defendants’ scope of work or the products provided by Defendants. 45. Defendants’ actions and inactions set out herein occurred in such a manner as to constitute gross negligence. Defendants’ actions, inactions, and omissions, when viewed objectively from Defendants’ standpoint at the time at issue, involved an extreme degree of risk, onsidering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, including Plaintiff and his guests. Defendants also had actual subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and/or welfare of others. Accordingly, the acts and omissions of Defendants justify and support an award of exemplary damages to Plaintiff as provided by Section 41.003(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. BREACH OF CONTRACT 46. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all knew that their contracts with each other were directly for Wood’s benefit and intended to confer a direct benefit on Wood by improving his property. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all knew that Bella, Hunt, and Zipperlin were all acting PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 16 for the direct benefit of Wood and that payment to them for their goods and services would come from Wood himself directly, not through Bella. It was clearly apparent from the contracts themselves that they were intended to benefit Wood. 47. BFS was contracted to supply building materials and to design, engineer and manufacture the trusses for the Plaza Structures. BFS was specifically contracted to determine whether the size of the rafters could be increased to true 2x8s instead of nominal 2x6s, to incorporate a third truss in the middle of each Plaza Structure, to cut the rafter tails cut into a special shape to match the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage, and to design and engineer the trusses accordingly. 48. BFS subcontracted with Sawmill to supply building materials and to design, engineer and manufacture the trusses for the Plaza Structures. In accordance with their agreement, BFS and/or Sawmill did determine that the size of the rafters could be increased to true 2x8s instead of nominal 2x6s. Sawmill subcontracted with Ridgeview to design, engineer, and build trusses for the Plaza Structures. Sawmill either determined—with or without input from Ridgeview in a telephone conversation—that a third truss could not be incorporated into the middle of each Plaza Structure, or simply failed to design, engineer and manufacture three trusses for each of the Plaza Structures. BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview failed to cut the rafter tails to match the shape of the rafter tails on Wood’s show car garage. Ridgeview failed to properly make the seat cuts on the top chords of the trusses to fit into the headers so that the trusses would sit level and failed to use mortise and tenon joinery as it agreed to do. 49. Most significantly, BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview all failed to engineer the trusses and failed to provide trusses for the Plaza Structures that were designed, engineered, and manufactured to support the roof of each Plaza Structure. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 17 50. The actions and omissions of Defendants BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview constitute breaches of contract which directly caused Plaintiff's damages and for which Plaintiff now sues. BFS accepted payment for the goods and services provided by BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview directly from Wood. VIL. ATTORNEY FEES 51. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as provided by Section 17.50(d) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and common law. IX. DAMAGES 52. Plaintiffs seeks all damages to which he is entitled including but not limited to actual damages, incidental and consequential damages, economic and non-economic damages including mental anguish, punitive damages, exemplary damages, and statutory damages available under statutory and common law, as well as the recovery of attorney fees. Xx. NOTICE OF INTENT UNDER RULE 193.7 53. Plaintiff gives notice of his intent to utilize items produced in discovery by BFS, Sawmill, and Ridgeview in pre-trial proceedings and at trial pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 18 judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants, for: (a) actual direct and consequential damages in an amount above $250,000 but less than $1,000,000; (b) damages for Charles David Wood Jr.’s lost time spent attempting to remove and replace the Plaza Structures; (©) statutory, treble and/or exemplary damages; (d) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees; (e) litigation expenses under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 27.01; (f) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed by law; (g) costs of court; and (h) such other and further relied to which Plaintiff may be entitled at law or equity. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William E. Reid WILLIAM E. REID (lead counsel) State Bar No. 16748500 wreid@reiddennis.com edocsnotifications@, reiddennis.com JOHN M. FRICK State Bar No. 07455200 ifrick@reiddennis.con REID DENNIS & FRICK, P.C. 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380 Frisco, Texas 75034 T: 214 618-1400 F: 214 618-1653 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHARLES DAVID WOOD JR PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record on this the 12" day of December, 2023 in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: /s/ William E. Reid William E. Reid PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION Page 20 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Chandra Rodriguez on behalf of John Frick Bar No. 7455200 crodriguez@reiddennis.com Envelope ID: 82506652 Filing Code Description: Amended Petition Filing Description: PLTS SECOND Status as of 12/13/2023 8:25 AM CST Associated Case Party: CHARLESDAVIDWOOD Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status WILLIAM EREID wreid@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT A Tubbs atubbs@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Reid Dennis edocsnotifications@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT John Frick jfrick@reiddennis.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Associated Case Party: BUILDERS FIRST SOURCE DALLAS, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status lan McLin imclin@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Maureen Purcell mpurcell@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Shawn Selvidge sselvidge@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Ethan Bannister ebannister@langleybanack.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Associated Case Party: SAWMILL PARTNERS LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Katie Ingram kingram@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Mark S.Senter msenter@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT E-Service Resnick & Louis mail@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Holly Polson hpolson@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Ciera Norris cnorris@rlattorneys.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Associated Case Party: RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS, LLC Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Chandra Rodriguez on behalf of John Frick Bar No. 7455200 crodriguez@reiddennis.com Envelope ID: 82506652 Filing Code Description: Amended Petition Filing Description: PLTS SECOND Status as of 12/13/2023 8:25 AM CST Associated Case Party: RIDGEVIEW TIMBERWORKS, LLC Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted Status Dan McManus dmcmanus@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Denise Gonzalez dgonzalez@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Russell Hems rhems@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Cilvia Velasquez cvelasquez@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Wesson Tribble wtribble@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT Jimmy Smith jsmith@tribblelawfirm.com 12/12/2023 4:52:17 PM SENT