Preview
Filing # 135776423 E-Filed 10/01/2021 04:35:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2020-CA-002942
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON
KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation;
HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER
PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC
N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation;
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida WEINTRAUB
corporation;
INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A
WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE
DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited
liabilitycompany; WOLF'S IRRIGATION &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
SUMMERPARK HOMES,
INC., a Florida
corporation; BROWN+COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
Defendants.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
Liability company,
Crossclaim Plaintiff,
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801
(321) 558-7700 + (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE,
INC., a Florida corporation, HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation;
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC N/K/A TGK STUCCO,
INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A = WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC.,
WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC.,
a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
Crossclaim Defendants.
/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
Vv.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida
corporation; CASEY HAWKINS, GLASS, INC., a
Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HELBERG
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION
OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL
DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and
WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company;
Third-Party Defendants.
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801
(321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com
DEFENDANT/ THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF,
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.’S
NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE
COMES NOW, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, WEATHERMASTER BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC.’S, (‘WEATHERMASTER”), pursuant to the Court’s Complex Construction
Case Management Order dated April 9, 2021, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its
Expert Witness Disclosure as follows:
I NAME OF EXPERT:
Robert H. Burke, Jr.
Managing Member
RHBJ Consulting, LLC
212 South Crystal Drive
Sanford, Florida 32773
(407) 376-2316
I SCOPE OF WORK:
Generally, Mr. Burke is expected to testify regarding all claims alleged against
WEATHERMASTER. This includes allegations of construction defects.
Ill. SUBJECT MATTER OF TESTIMONY:
Mr. Burke will also provide testimony about his evaluation of Plaintiff's construction
defect allegations and claimed scope of repair; nature and extent of any claimed
damages; causation of any damages; development of alternative means and methods
for any repair recommendations; and evaluation of Plaintiff's maintenance
obligations/responsibilities as a contributing factor in causing the claimed damages.
Mr. Burke will also testify as to design defects attributable alleged damages related to
WEATHERMASTER’s scope of work.
IV. EXPERT REPORT & QUALIFICATION:
Mr. Burke’s expert report and curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801
(321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com
Vv DEPOSITION AVAILABILITY:
Mr. Burke is available for deposition with advance notice.
Respectfully Submitted,
4s/ Peter J. Kapsales
PETER J. KAPSALES, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 91176
SHAWN M. TRAUTMAN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 124269
MILNE LAW GROUP, P.A.
301 East Pine Street, Suite 525
Orlando, Florida 32801
Tel: (321) 558-7700
Fax: (407) 641-2111
Email: pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com
strautman@milnelawgroup.com
eservice@milnelawgroup.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff, Weathermaster Building Products,
Ine.
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801
(321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of October 2021, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court using the Florida Courts’ e-Filing
Portal, which will deliver electronic copies of said filing pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516 to
the designated email addresses of all counsel of record.
4/ Peter J. Kapsales
PETER J. KAPSALES, ESQ.
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801
(321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com
Expert Report
September 29, 2021
prepared for
Peter J. Kapsales, Esq.
Milne Law Group, P.A.
301 E. Pine St., Ste. 525
Orlando, FL 32801
regarding
Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v.
Royal Oak Homes, Inc. v.
Weathermaster Building Products, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2020-CA-002942
In the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit
in and For Osceola County, Florida
ie
ES
Gi a, an.
Pe m es
cea — es
~~
= — alee
aac
co
prepared by
Robert H. Burke, Jr., AIA, NCARB
RHBj Consulting, LLC
Forensic Architecture
Litigation Support
212 S. Crystal Drive
Sanford, FL 32773
407-376-2316
AR0006478
A
Exhibit "A"
RHBj Consulting, LLC
Forensic Architecture & Litigation Support
©
212 S. Crystal Drive
Sanford, FL 32773
EXPERT REPORT
September 29, 2021
Prepared for: Peter J. Kapsales, Esq.
Milne Law Group. P.A.
301 E. Pine St., Ste 525
Orlando, FL 32801
Regarding: Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v.
Royal Oaks Homes, LLC v. Weathermaster Building Products, Inc., et al.
Case N.: 2020-CA-002942
Statement of Purpose
This report was prepared by Architect Robert H. Burke, Jr., AIA, NCARB of RHBj Consulting, LLC.
(RHBj) at the request of Peter J. Kapsales, Esq. of the Milne Law Group, P.A. in Orlando, FL,
attorneys on behalf of Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. This matter is about alleged design
and construction issues associated with the development of Villas at Emerald Lake townhomes in
Kissimmee, FL. This report will focus on the Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports, review of the
construction/permit plans and specifications, and the Design Professional’s standard of care.
Professional Qualifications
| have been involved in creative design and problem solving for nearly 5 decades and have
provided litigation support services as an Expert Architect since 2003.
My education includes an Associate of Arts degree from St. Johns River Jr. College (1967), Palatka,
FL and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Florida School of Architecture
(1971), Gainesville, FL, where | am also a Distinguished Alumnus and recipient of the Distinguished
Service Award from the School of Architecture. My architectural experience includes serving
public and private clients primarily throughout the State of Florida. Project types include
corporate office, medical office & surgery centers, schools, worship facilities, parking structures,
retail, multi-family, hospitality and recreation facilities.
| have held an active certification from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
(NCARB) since 1974 and am a licensed Architect in Florida, Ohio, Rhode Island, Alabama, and
Texas.
Ki
Page 1 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
| have had the honor and the privilege of serving on the Florida Board of Architecture n/k/a the
Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design for eight years and serving on the NCARB Board
of Directors for eight years with the distinction of being the only Florida architect to have served
as NCARB President and Florida Board of Architecture Chairman.
A detailed CV and Litigation Support Summary is attached to this report.
Principal Parties
Below is a list of principal parties associated with the Project and may be included in this report:
Homeowner’s Assoc. Villas as Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (Association)
(Plaintiff)
Plaintiff's Expert Marcon Forensics (Marcon)
Developer, Builder Royal Oaks Homes, LLC (Royal)
Royal’s Expert Alta Engineering Company (Alta)
Architect of Record Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. (BCA)
Larry D. Brown, AROO08899 (Brown)
Window Supplier Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. (Weathermaster)
Documents Reviewed
The following case documents were reviewed during the process of discovery and contributed to
the development of opinions stated throughout this report:
. Association’s Amended Complaint, April 30,2021
. Royal Oak Homes, LLC’s Amended Crossclaim Complaint, May 10, 2021
. Weathermaster’s Contract with Royal, January 31, 2014
. Weathermaster’s Pay Records
General Aluminum Company, Florida Product Approval Documents
DuPont-FexWrap-NF Installation Instructions
Association’s Expert Reports:
o Engineering Assessment Report, Marcon, April 2, 2021 (updated April 28, 2020
report)
o Engineering Assessment Report, Marcon, April 28, 2020
o. Preliminary Estimate, SMH Construction Services, Ins., April 5, 2021
Royal’s Expert Reports:
o Evaluation Report, Alta, September 10, 2021
o Expert Report, Infotech Consulting, Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin, September 10,
2021
Construction/Permit Plans by Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.
o Lots 110-117, 8 Units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S June 20, 2016
Ki
Page 2 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
Lots 118-125, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S April 16, 2014
Lots 126-133, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S May 8, 2014
Lots 134-141, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S September 4, 2014
Lots 142-149, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 11, 2015
Lots 162-169, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 11, 2015
Lots 170-177, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S January 4, 2016
Lots 178-181, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 24, 2016
o Lots 182-189, 4 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 6, 2016
o Lots 190-197, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 31, 2016
Florida Building Code, 2010 & 2014 (5** Edition)
Florida Building Code-Residential, 2010 & 2014 (5" Edition)
ASTM C 926-15b and ASTM C1063-15b
Florida Statute 471 and FAC 61G15
ASTM 2128 Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls
DuPont-FlexWrap-NF-Installation Instructions
Osceola County Product Approval Form, undated
Site Observation by RHBj
| performed a general visual observation of the community on August 11, 2021. Photographs were
taken to document exterior building conditions and locations where Marcon performed
destructive testing. | did not have the benefit of attending Marcon’s destructive testing that took
place on January 8, 9 & 10, 2020.
Project Information
Villas at Emerald Lake is a townhome development located on Lizzia Brown Rd. south of
downtown Kissimmee, FL. The project consists of 12 buildings containing a total of 88 townhome
units in 4 and 8-unit buildings. The Dimillo group started the project and completed two buildings
(Lots 150-161) and Royal later developed the remaining 10 buildings.
Permit plans reveal that construction consists of monolithic concrete slabs with concrete block
(CMU) walls at the first floor supporting wood frame construction at the second floor with pre-
engineered floor and roof trusses. The roofs are covered with shingles over 15 LB. felt. Exterior
walls are clad with Portland cement plaster (stucco) and finished with a paint coating.
Page 3 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
Summary of Weathermaster’s Scope of Work
Weathermaster’s Subcontractor Agreement with Royal dated January 31, 2014 that required
Weathermaster to “complete the Work in strict compliance with the Contract Documents and
all changes and addenda thereto” as stated in Sec. 3. Contractor Responsibilities. This section
also requires that the “Contractor shall comply, and cause all of its employees and
Subcontractors to comply, with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations that
may be applicable to the Work, including without limitation, applicable building codes and
ordinances.”
Weathermaster’s agreement with Royal does not include a specific scope of work, so
Weathermaster’s scope is presumably described by and limited to the work outlined in various
Purchase Orders issued throughout their involvement in this project.
Windows supplied by Weathermaster and installed by subcontractors were aluminum frame,
single hung units with insulated glazing as manufactured by General Aluminum Company.
Window configurations are single and mulled. Windows installed in wood frame walls are flashed
with self-adhering rubberized-asphalt tape. Windows in the ground floor masonry walls are
installed over pressure treated wood bucks and flashed with a secondary sealant.
Review of Marcon’s Testing at Walls and Windows
Based on destructive testing that took place on January 8, 9 & 10, Marcon has determined and
stated in their April 2, 2021 report that various deficiencies were caused by:
a) Defective material, products, or components used in the construction.
b) Violation of the applicable codes in effect at the time of construction.
¢) Failure in the design to meet the applicable design standards existing at the time of
government approval.
d) Failure to construct in accordance with accepted trade standards for good and
workmanlike construction at the time of construction.
The following is a compilation of window related issues reported by Marcon at various townhome
units and test locations. Additionally, Marcon performed window testing on a limited number of
windows employing the AAMA 511 Dam Test and using the 501.2 Wand Spray Test. These test
procedures will be discussed later in this report. This listing of Marcon’s findings and alleged
deficiencies are presented in the same order as they appear on page 7 of Marcon’s April 2, 2021
report.
2851 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, front elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 314 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter: Sill pan
flashing installed behind window fin over building wrap.
Ki
Page 4 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in
7/8” stucco.
2851 Sunstone Dr._(Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 405 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered has
gaps.
2869 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 210 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed. Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in
7/8” stucco.
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter. Jamb
flashing not fully adhered.
2.0103 Sealant under window fins: No sealant under sill nail fin.
3.0190 Damaged wall sheathing. Damaged OSB wall sheathing.
2879 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 212 Dam and Spray Test
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas.
2.0117 Window was installed square.
2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Water stains on bottom plate (below window).
2.0101 Window passed dam test.
2.0102 Window failed spray test, leak at sill / jamb corner.
Cut 214 Stucco Test
2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in
7/8” stucco.
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter. Jamb
flashing not fully adhered.
2.0103 Sealant under window fins: No sealant under sill nail fin.
2.0112 Damaged window fin: Damaged window fin corner.
2879 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 213 Dam and Spray test
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas.
2.0101 Window dam test: PASS.
2.0102 Window spray test: PASS.
Cut 215 Stucco Test
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter: Jamb
flashing does not cover nail fin.
Ki
Page 5 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
2.0103 Sealant under window fins: no sealant under sill nail fin.
2883 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, front elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 211 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has
gaps.
2890 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, front elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 209 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered,
has gaps.
2890 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 408 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered,
has gaps.
2906 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 209 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered,
has gaps.
2927 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 206, Dam and Water Test
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill
/ jamb areas.
2.0117 Window installed square
/ fully operable.
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas, stained
insulation, and damaged sill plate under window.
2.0101 Window dam test: PASS.
2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under right jamb/sill.
Cut 207, Stucco Test
2.0103 Sealant under fins: No sealant under sill nail fin.
2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in
7/8” stucco.
2930 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall)
Cut 201, Dam and Water Test
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas.
2.0117 Window installed square / fully operable.
Page 6 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas, stained
OSB.
2.0101 Window dam test: FAIL. Leak at right sill / jamb corner.
2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under left sill / jamb corner.
Cut 304 Stucco Test
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter; Window
flashing partially installed behind wall weep.
2.0103 Sealant under fins: No sealant under sill nail fin.
2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in
7/8” stucco.
2934 Tanzanite Ter. (Single window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall)
Cut 203 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary
sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered,
has gaps.
Cut 202, Dam and Water Test
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill
/ jamb areas.
2.0117 Window installed square / fully operable.
2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb area.
2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Staining and bio-organic growth on window
bucks and on backside of insulation.
2.0101 Window dam test: FAIL. Leak at right frame corner.
2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under left and right sill / jamb corner.
Building construction issues common for all frame construction include the following:
. Lack of separation at window frames,
. Lack of a proper sealant window perimeter sealant joint, and
. Incorrect installation of stucco.
Marcon also insists that the windows used at this project were inappropriate for 7/8” stucco
applications.
Summary of Marcon’s Testing
Ground Floor Windows:
Marcon removed stucco at the sill/jamb corner of six ground floor windows in CMU walls. In each
case, Marcon only found that the secondary sealant between the window frame masonry was not
properly adhered and there were gaps in the sealant. Marcon preformed dam and water testing
at only one of these six windows and reported failure of both the dam and spray test.
Marcon’s recommendation for repair as stated in their reports on page 11 is to remove and
replace, not reinstall, but to replace all windows in masonry walls. This appears to be based ona
Ki
Page 7 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
single product and installation failure extrapolated to all ground floor windows because of the
condition identified as failed adhesion of the secondary sealant.
While Marcon found water intrusion when water testing a single window that appears to coincide
with water intrusion at the sill/jamb corners, there is no evidence and it is unreasonable to assume
that this same condition exists at the remaining windows in masonry walls.
Marcon’s repair recommendation for stucco over masonry walls is to remove and replace stucco
around all windows and to provide properly installed polyurethane secondary sealant around all
window perimeters.
Alta stated in their September 10, 2021 report that no repair is required to address Marcon’s
allegation. Like Alta, | was not informed of the Marcon’s testing and therefore do not have first-
hand knowledge of existing conditions, testing procedures, and test results.
Opinions:
1. Marcon has not provided sufficient evidence to justify removing and replacing the
windows that have been in service for four to five years.
Marcon presented no evidence that would justify removal of windows in order to install
a new polyurethane secondary perimeter sealant.
Additionally, the replacement of all windows in masonry walls is a perfect example of
economic waste.
Second Floor Windows:
Marcon removed stucco at the sill/jamb corner of six second floor windows in wood frame walls
and found the following alleged deficiencies:
1 Stained drywall, insulation, framing and sheathing
2. Damaged window frame corner at one of six tests
3. Sill pan installed behind window fin and over housewrap
4. One location where the tape flashing did not cover the window fin at one of six tests
Window flashing partially installed behind wall weep
Window jamb flashing not fully adhered at two of six tests
No sealant under sill fins at four of six tests
Incorrect window type installed at six of six tests
This summary shows that Marcon’s alleged deficiencies were inconsistent in that they did not
appear at all similar test sites. My commentary and opinions regarding the above list of alleged
deficiencies are as follows:
Ki
Page 8 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
1. Stained Drywall, insulation, framing and sheathing: Marcon’s images of staining show
conditions of very minor discoloration to absolutely no discoloration on sheathing and framing.
Staining at locations where dam tests failed can be easily managed with an application of
appropriate sealant at the inside joint of the sill and jamb connection as part of routine
maintenance. This is a typical remedy for aluminum window considering the amount of handling
they experience from factory to installation to operation and usage. Additionally, Marcon’s
photographs did not portray cracking at drywall corners and baseboard that would signify that a
substantial amount of water intrusion had taken place.
Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect that requires repair.
2. Damaged Window Frame Corner: This condition was found at one second-floor window in
Cut 214. Marcon did not attribute this anomaly to causing or contributing to water intrusion at
this test location.
Opinion: While this is not a condition that should exist, it has not been proven to cause
or contribute to water intrusion and therefore is not a construction defect.
3. Sill Pan Flashing: Additionally, Marcon also found at Cut #3 that the sill pan flashing installed
behind window fin over building wrap. The sill pan flashing is DuPont FlexWrap NF and the
installations instructions call for the Tyvek weather barrier to be cut at the window opening and
not wrapped to the inside. The instructions then call for the FlexWrap to be installed over the
weather barrier as shown in Marcon’s various stucco cut at window corners.
Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect and no repairs are
necessary.
4. Tape Flashing at Fin: Marcon found at Cut 215 that the window flashing tape was not installed
over the window fin, instead it was applied about %” off the fin and adhered to the FlexWrap.
Marcon does not attribute this anomaly to causing or contributing to water intrusion of damage.
Opinion: This is an anomaly and should not be considered an installation defect.
5. Window Flashing at Wall Weep: Marcon found an anomaly at Cut 304 where the window
flashing was partially installed behind the wall weep. Since the window flashing would be in place
prior to the stucco subcontractor starting his work, it is entirely likely that the window flashing
was altered when the stucco weep accessory was installed. Since the installed weep accessory
was incorrect, this condition can be rectified when the stucco is removed to install a correct weep
screed accessory.
Opinion: This is not a window installation defect.
6. Tape Flashing not Adhered: Marcon found relatively minor locations at Cuts 210 and 214
where flashing tape at the window jambs was not fully adhered. There is no evidence that this
existed elsewhere at the tested windows and no evidence that this condition caused or
Ki
Page 9 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
contributed to water intrusion and/or damage to building components such as wood sheathing
and framing.
Opinion: This is not a construction of window installation defect.
7. No Sealant Under Fins: Marcon found that there was no sealant under the sill fin at four of
the six test sites (Cuts 207, 210, 214 & 304). This has been and continues to be common practice
with aluminum window installations in the voids or the absence of sealant at the sill fin serve to
drain water from unexpected leaks at window joinery. Fully sealed sill fins prelude drainage and
result in water intrusion directly to the framing and ultimately to unit interiors. Additionally,
FMA/AAMA 100 Standard Practice for the Installation of Windows with Flanges or Mounting Fins
in Wood Frame Construction recommends gaps in the sealant to manage moisture from window
leaks.
Furthermore, Marcon did not state that the absence of sealant under window sill fins actually
caused or contributed to water intrusion at any of the four test sites.
Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect.
8. Window Type: In their comments regarding testing at the six windows in wood frame walls,
Marcon stated repeatedly that the windows were an incorrect type of window in that the window
frame is 1-3/8” deep in a 7/8” stucco application.
The windows at this project were aluminum single hung units in a single or mulled configuration.
Per the Osceola County Product Approval Form for 2914 Tanzanite Ter., the windows are
manufactured by General Aluminum Co. and are model #/Series 1570/1970. These windows
carry Florida Product Approval (FPA) numbers of FL15605 and FL15606. Additionally, this
document would have been prepared and submitted for permit by the Contractor, contains the
FPA numbers for all doors and
roofing products. aoe. AINDyA aD a
1247 ne
Florida Product Approval
documents for General Fr
INTERIOR a
tan
oh
I. nee
Aluminum windows selected
for this project have installation
instructions clearly depicting
Gy rane
HF
ay
E2tor
the window frame depth at the a ny TYP ae ba ye: SIR IALOY AACE
FERMI
exterior to be greater than ™ volte
Las
7/8”. The detail below dated
08/29/11 is from Sheet 3 of 3
and is from the installation instructions for single hung windows Service 1900/1970.
Page 10 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
The detail below shows the Architect’s jamb detail and calls for the stucco to be installed tight to
the window frame without separation. The detail also calls for a 3/8” deep V-groove filled with
caulk,
FOLD HOUSE WRAP THROUGH THE WINDOW OPENING, TIGHTLY
‘AROUND JAMB. SECURE TO STRUCTURAL MEMBERS (TH CAPPED
NAILS OR TAPE — SEE DETAIL 3, 3.1 & 3.2 ON SSK-"
WALL SHEATHING INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION
AND PER ENGINEER OF RECORD.
\ wood sTup \
po
Kea
HOUSE WRAP
SEAL JAMB FLAN( 3/8" DEEP V-GROOVE
GRADE D BUILDING USING SELF ADHERIN
wo)
FLASHING (PEEL AND SI JECO:_3 COAT (3/8"
2.8 L8/SQ. YARD GALVANIZED SELF FURRED. EXTEND 2° ABOVE ABOVE & SCRATCH, 3/8” GROWN, 1/8” FIN
ETAL LATH CONFORMING TO ASTM. C847. BELOW WINDOW FRAME
ATIAGH TO STUDS OAL AT co;
W/STAPLES — te r nN oR v C ) MINOW IAN’ oa
RCOANG NALS (STALL ACCORDANCE. WiK
ASTM C-1063-6)
WINDOW SILL AND JAMB DETAIL
N.S.
The window type on this project was open and obvious from the time they were installed to the
time the stucco was applied and the painter applied sealant and paint and thereafter. If the
installed windows were incorrect for this project, Royal should have noticed them and made a
change early in the project.
Opinions:
1. Weathermaster provided standard General Aluminum windows and sliding glass doors
that the Contactor indicated on the Florida Product Approval form for permitting in
Osceola County.
2. The windows are appropriate for both 7/8” and 1-3/8” stucco
3. Stucco can be separated from the aluminum window frame and there are options for a
proper perimeter sealant joint
Other than Marcon’s allegation that the windows are incorrect for this project, there is
no substantive evidence to support the complete removal and replacement of windows
that have only been in service for four to five years. To do so would be a perfect
example of economic waste.
Page 11 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
501.2 Spray Testing:
Marcon conducted their version of a spray test at four windows in wood frame walls where three
windows failed and one passed. Marcon stated in their report on page 4 that their investigation
would rely on certain standards including the American Architectural Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) publication 501.2 (Wand Spray Test). In the past Marcon have justified the use of this
standard by proclaiming that ASTM E2128 Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of
Building Walls allows them to use whatever testing methodologies they see fit “based on their
past knowledge and experience.” | agree that ASTM E2128 allows for a “toolbelt of options”,
however, it is my professional opinion that it is irresponsible for a testing entity to add a test
methodology to its toolbelt that clearly states in its published standards that the AAMA 501.2
wand is not to be used on operable windows.
Note 1: This field check method is not appropriate for testing of operable
components such as operable window and doors. AAMA 502-02 is the proper
test method for field air leakage resistance and water penetration resistance
testing of operable windows and doors.
Until such time as the language in AAMA 501.2 is changed, the 501.2 wand is not appropriate for
testing operable windows, period.
Alta objected to Marcon’s water testing methodology stating, “The reason for AAMA’s precaution
is that the concentrated water pressure produced by the AAMA nozzle is typically much greater
than can be resisted by the weather-stripped joints between the operating sash and fixed
window operating sash and the fix window frame, which greatly exceeds the capacity of the
window and therefore often results in test-induced water entry.”
Opinion: The use of the AAMA 501.2 Wand test on operable widows is inappropriate
and therefore Marcon’s reported test results are not valid.
Repair Recommendations:
Marcon’s recommendation for repair as stated in their reports includes removal and replacement
of all windows in wood frame walls. This appears to be based primarily upon Marcon’s opinion
that the windows are inappropriate for 7/8” stucco applications. As for windows in masonry walls,
Marcon performed exterior testing at 6 windows and reported what appeared to be secondary
sealant adhesion issues. The performed a water testing at a one of these 6 windows in a masonry
wall and found damage to the wood buck. There is no evidence and it is unreasonable to assume
that this same condition exists at the remaining windows.
Summary Opinions: Notwithstanding the opinions noted above in this report, | present the
following summary opinions:
Ki
Page 12 of 17
RHBj Consulting, LLC.
Marcon’s use of the AAMA 501.2 Spray Wand was improper and led to unreliable test
results. Water intrusion at this project is well documented by Marcon as the result of
failed stucco application and the lack of a proper window perimeter sealant joint.
Water testing on 5 windows out of a reported total of 473 windows equating to
approximately 1.1% of the combined total at the 10 buildings where Weathermaster
was responsible for providing and installing windows is insufficient testing and fails to
provide a reliable basis upon which to extrapolate to the entire project.
Marcon
Preview
Filing # 135776423 E-Filed 10/01/2021 04:35:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO: 2020-CA-002942 VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida WEINTRAUB corporation; INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany; WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited Liability company, Crossclaim Plaintiff, Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801 (321) 558-7700 + (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation, HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A = WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; Crossclaim Defendants. / WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, Vv. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS, GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Third-Party Defendants. Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801 (321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com DEFENDANT/ THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.’S NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE COMES NOW, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.’S, (‘WEATHERMASTER”), pursuant to the Court’s Complex Construction Case Management Order dated April 9, 2021, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Expert Witness Disclosure as follows: I NAME OF EXPERT: Robert H. Burke, Jr. Managing Member RHBJ Consulting, LLC 212 South Crystal Drive Sanford, Florida 32773 (407) 376-2316 I SCOPE OF WORK: Generally, Mr. Burke is expected to testify regarding all claims alleged against WEATHERMASTER. This includes allegations of construction defects. Ill. SUBJECT MATTER OF TESTIMONY: Mr. Burke will also provide testimony about his evaluation of Plaintiff's construction defect allegations and claimed scope of repair; nature and extent of any claimed damages; causation of any damages; development of alternative means and methods for any repair recommendations; and evaluation of Plaintiff's maintenance obligations/responsibilities as a contributing factor in causing the claimed damages. Mr. Burke will also testify as to design defects attributable alleged damages related to WEATHERMASTER’s scope of work. IV. EXPERT REPORT & QUALIFICATION: Mr. Burke’s expert report and curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801 (321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com Vv DEPOSITION AVAILABILITY: Mr. Burke is available for deposition with advance notice. Respectfully Submitted, 4s/ Peter J. Kapsales PETER J. KAPSALES, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 91176 SHAWN M. TRAUTMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 124269 MILNE LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 525 Orlando, Florida 32801 Tel: (321) 558-7700 Fax: (407) 641-2111 Email: pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com strautman@milnelawgroup.com eservice@milnelawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Weathermaster Building Products, Ine. Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801 (321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of October 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court using the Florida Courts’ e-Filing Portal, which will deliver electronic copies of said filing pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516 to the designated email addresses of all counsel of record. 4/ Peter J. Kapsales PETER J. KAPSALES, ESQ. Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine Street + Suite 525 * Orlando, FL 32801 (321) 558-7700 » (407) 641-2111-Fax * www.milnelawgroup.com Expert Report September 29, 2021 prepared for Peter J. Kapsales, Esq. Milne Law Group, P.A. 301 E. Pine St., Ste. 525 Orlando, FL 32801 regarding Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Royal Oak Homes, Inc. v. Weathermaster Building Products, Inc., et al. Case No.: 2020-CA-002942 In the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and For Osceola County, Florida ie ES Gi a, an. Pe m es cea — es ~~ = — alee aac co prepared by Robert H. Burke, Jr., AIA, NCARB RHBj Consulting, LLC Forensic Architecture Litigation Support 212 S. Crystal Drive Sanford, FL 32773 407-376-2316 AR0006478 A Exhibit "A" RHBj Consulting, LLC Forensic Architecture & Litigation Support © 212 S. Crystal Drive Sanford, FL 32773 EXPERT REPORT September 29, 2021 Prepared for: Peter J. Kapsales, Esq. Milne Law Group. P.A. 301 E. Pine St., Ste 525 Orlando, FL 32801 Regarding: Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Royal Oaks Homes, LLC v. Weathermaster Building Products, Inc., et al. Case N.: 2020-CA-002942 Statement of Purpose This report was prepared by Architect Robert H. Burke, Jr., AIA, NCARB of RHBj Consulting, LLC. (RHBj) at the request of Peter J. Kapsales, Esq. of the Milne Law Group, P.A. in Orlando, FL, attorneys on behalf of Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. This matter is about alleged design and construction issues associated with the development of Villas at Emerald Lake townhomes in Kissimmee, FL. This report will focus on the Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports, review of the construction/permit plans and specifications, and the Design Professional’s standard of care. Professional Qualifications | have been involved in creative design and problem solving for nearly 5 decades and have provided litigation support services as an Expert Architect since 2003. My education includes an Associate of Arts degree from St. Johns River Jr. College (1967), Palatka, FL and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of Florida School of Architecture (1971), Gainesville, FL, where | am also a Distinguished Alumnus and recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the School of Architecture. My architectural experience includes serving public and private clients primarily throughout the State of Florida. Project types include corporate office, medical office & surgery centers, schools, worship facilities, parking structures, retail, multi-family, hospitality and recreation facilities. | have held an active certification from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) since 1974 and am a licensed Architect in Florida, Ohio, Rhode Island, Alabama, and Texas. Ki Page 1 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. | have had the honor and the privilege of serving on the Florida Board of Architecture n/k/a the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design for eight years and serving on the NCARB Board of Directors for eight years with the distinction of being the only Florida architect to have served as NCARB President and Florida Board of Architecture Chairman. A detailed CV and Litigation Support Summary is attached to this report. Principal Parties Below is a list of principal parties associated with the Project and may be included in this report: Homeowner’s Assoc. Villas as Emerald Lake Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (Association) (Plaintiff) Plaintiff's Expert Marcon Forensics (Marcon) Developer, Builder Royal Oaks Homes, LLC (Royal) Royal’s Expert Alta Engineering Company (Alta) Architect of Record Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. (BCA) Larry D. Brown, AROO08899 (Brown) Window Supplier Weathermaster Building Products, Inc. (Weathermaster) Documents Reviewed The following case documents were reviewed during the process of discovery and contributed to the development of opinions stated throughout this report: . Association’s Amended Complaint, April 30,2021 . Royal Oak Homes, LLC’s Amended Crossclaim Complaint, May 10, 2021 . Weathermaster’s Contract with Royal, January 31, 2014 . Weathermaster’s Pay Records General Aluminum Company, Florida Product Approval Documents DuPont-FexWrap-NF Installation Instructions Association’s Expert Reports: o Engineering Assessment Report, Marcon, April 2, 2021 (updated April 28, 2020 report) o Engineering Assessment Report, Marcon, April 28, 2020 o. Preliminary Estimate, SMH Construction Services, Ins., April 5, 2021 Royal’s Expert Reports: o Evaluation Report, Alta, September 10, 2021 o Expert Report, Infotech Consulting, Dr. Jamie McClave Baldwin, September 10, 2021 Construction/Permit Plans by Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. o Lots 110-117, 8 Units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S June 20, 2016 Ki Page 2 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. Lots 118-125, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S April 16, 2014 Lots 126-133, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S May 8, 2014 Lots 134-141, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S September 4, 2014 Lots 142-149, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 11, 2015 Lots 162-169, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 11, 2015 Lots 170-177, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S January 4, 2016 Lots 178-181, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 24, 2016 o Lots 182-189, 4 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 6, 2016 o Lots 190-197, 8 units, Plan Date: March 29, 2014, S/S March 31, 2016 Florida Building Code, 2010 & 2014 (5** Edition) Florida Building Code-Residential, 2010 & 2014 (5" Edition) ASTM C 926-15b and ASTM C1063-15b Florida Statute 471 and FAC 61G15 ASTM 2128 Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls DuPont-FlexWrap-NF-Installation Instructions Osceola County Product Approval Form, undated Site Observation by RHBj | performed a general visual observation of the community on August 11, 2021. Photographs were taken to document exterior building conditions and locations where Marcon performed destructive testing. | did not have the benefit of attending Marcon’s destructive testing that took place on January 8, 9 & 10, 2020. Project Information Villas at Emerald Lake is a townhome development located on Lizzia Brown Rd. south of downtown Kissimmee, FL. The project consists of 12 buildings containing a total of 88 townhome units in 4 and 8-unit buildings. The Dimillo group started the project and completed two buildings (Lots 150-161) and Royal later developed the remaining 10 buildings. Permit plans reveal that construction consists of monolithic concrete slabs with concrete block (CMU) walls at the first floor supporting wood frame construction at the second floor with pre- engineered floor and roof trusses. The roofs are covered with shingles over 15 LB. felt. Exterior walls are clad with Portland cement plaster (stucco) and finished with a paint coating. Page 3 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. Summary of Weathermaster’s Scope of Work Weathermaster’s Subcontractor Agreement with Royal dated January 31, 2014 that required Weathermaster to “complete the Work in strict compliance with the Contract Documents and all changes and addenda thereto” as stated in Sec. 3. Contractor Responsibilities. This section also requires that the “Contractor shall comply, and cause all of its employees and Subcontractors to comply, with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations that may be applicable to the Work, including without limitation, applicable building codes and ordinances.” Weathermaster’s agreement with Royal does not include a specific scope of work, so Weathermaster’s scope is presumably described by and limited to the work outlined in various Purchase Orders issued throughout their involvement in this project. Windows supplied by Weathermaster and installed by subcontractors were aluminum frame, single hung units with insulated glazing as manufactured by General Aluminum Company. Window configurations are single and mulled. Windows installed in wood frame walls are flashed with self-adhering rubberized-asphalt tape. Windows in the ground floor masonry walls are installed over pressure treated wood bucks and flashed with a secondary sealant. Review of Marcon’s Testing at Walls and Windows Based on destructive testing that took place on January 8, 9 & 10, Marcon has determined and stated in their April 2, 2021 report that various deficiencies were caused by: a) Defective material, products, or components used in the construction. b) Violation of the applicable codes in effect at the time of construction. ¢) Failure in the design to meet the applicable design standards existing at the time of government approval. d) Failure to construct in accordance with accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction at the time of construction. The following is a compilation of window related issues reported by Marcon at various townhome units and test locations. Additionally, Marcon performed window testing on a limited number of windows employing the AAMA 511 Dam Test and using the 501.2 Wand Spray Test. These test procedures will be discussed later in this report. This listing of Marcon’s findings and alleged deficiencies are presented in the same order as they appear on page 7 of Marcon’s April 2, 2021 report. 2851 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, front elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 314 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter: Sill pan flashing installed behind window fin over building wrap. Ki Page 4 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in 7/8” stucco. 2851 Sunstone Dr._(Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 405 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered has gaps. 2869 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 210 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed. Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in 7/8” stucco. 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter. Jamb flashing not fully adhered. 2.0103 Sealant under window fins: No sealant under sill nail fin. 3.0190 Damaged wall sheathing. Damaged OSB wall sheathing. 2879 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 212 Dam and Spray Test 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas. 2.0117 Window was installed square. 2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Water stains on bottom plate (below window). 2.0101 Window passed dam test. 2.0102 Window failed spray test, leak at sill / jamb corner. Cut 214 Stucco Test 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in 7/8” stucco. 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter. Jamb flashing not fully adhered. 2.0103 Sealant under window fins: No sealant under sill nail fin. 2.0112 Damaged window fin: Damaged window fin corner. 2879 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 213 Dam and Spray test 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas. 2.0101 Window dam test: PASS. 2.0102 Window spray test: PASS. Cut 215 Stucco Test 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter: Jamb flashing does not cover nail fin. Ki Page 5 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. 2.0103 Sealant under window fins: no sealant under sill nail fin. 2883 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, front elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 211 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has gaps. 2890 Sunstone Dr. (Single window, front elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 209 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has gaps. 2890 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 408 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has gaps. 2906 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 209 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has gaps. 2927 Sunstone Dr. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 206, Dam and Water Test 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas. 2.0117 Window installed square / fully operable. 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas, stained insulation, and damaged sill plate under window. 2.0101 Window dam test: PASS. 2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under right jamb/sill. Cut 207, Stucco Test 2.0103 Sealant under fins: No sealant under sill nail fin. 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in 7/8” stucco. 2930 Tanzanite Ter. (Mulled window, rear elevation, second floor, frame wall) Cut 201, Dam and Water Test 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas. 2.0117 Window installed square / fully operable. Page 6 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas, stained OSB. 2.0101 Window dam test: FAIL. Leak at right sill / jamb corner. 2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under left sill / jamb corner. Cut 304 Stucco Test 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter; Window flashing partially installed behind wall weep. 2.0103 Sealant under fins: No sealant under sill nail fin. 2.0116 Incorrect type of window installed: Window has 1-3/8” deep frame in 7/8” stucco. 2934 Tanzanite Ter. (Single window, side elevation, ground floor, CMU wall) Cut 203 3.0202 Improper application of secondary sealant around window: Secondary sealant between window frame and masonry is not properly adhered, has gaps. Cut 202, Dam and Water Test 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb areas. 2.0117 Window installed square / fully operable. 2.0192 Damage to wall components: Stained drywall on sill / jamb area. 2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Staining and bio-organic growth on window bucks and on backside of insulation. 2.0101 Window dam test: FAIL. Leak at right frame corner. 2.0102 Window spray test: FAIL. Leak under left and right sill / jamb corner. Building construction issues common for all frame construction include the following: . Lack of separation at window frames, . Lack of a proper sealant window perimeter sealant joint, and . Incorrect installation of stucco. Marcon also insists that the windows used at this project were inappropriate for 7/8” stucco applications. Summary of Marcon’s Testing Ground Floor Windows: Marcon removed stucco at the sill/jamb corner of six ground floor windows in CMU walls. In each case, Marcon only found that the secondary sealant between the window frame masonry was not properly adhered and there were gaps in the sealant. Marcon preformed dam and water testing at only one of these six windows and reported failure of both the dam and spray test. Marcon’s recommendation for repair as stated in their reports on page 11 is to remove and replace, not reinstall, but to replace all windows in masonry walls. This appears to be based ona Ki Page 7 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. single product and installation failure extrapolated to all ground floor windows because of the condition identified as failed adhesion of the secondary sealant. While Marcon found water intrusion when water testing a single window that appears to coincide with water intrusion at the sill/jamb corners, there is no evidence and it is unreasonable to assume that this same condition exists at the remaining windows in masonry walls. Marcon’s repair recommendation for stucco over masonry walls is to remove and replace stucco around all windows and to provide properly installed polyurethane secondary sealant around all window perimeters. Alta stated in their September 10, 2021 report that no repair is required to address Marcon’s allegation. Like Alta, | was not informed of the Marcon’s testing and therefore do not have first- hand knowledge of existing conditions, testing procedures, and test results. Opinions: 1. Marcon has not provided sufficient evidence to justify removing and replacing the windows that have been in service for four to five years. Marcon presented no evidence that would justify removal of windows in order to install a new polyurethane secondary perimeter sealant. Additionally, the replacement of all windows in masonry walls is a perfect example of economic waste. Second Floor Windows: Marcon removed stucco at the sill/jamb corner of six second floor windows in wood frame walls and found the following alleged deficiencies: 1 Stained drywall, insulation, framing and sheathing 2. Damaged window frame corner at one of six tests 3. Sill pan installed behind window fin and over housewrap 4. One location where the tape flashing did not cover the window fin at one of six tests Window flashing partially installed behind wall weep Window jamb flashing not fully adhered at two of six tests No sealant under sill fins at four of six tests Incorrect window type installed at six of six tests This summary shows that Marcon’s alleged deficiencies were inconsistent in that they did not appear at all similar test sites. My commentary and opinions regarding the above list of alleged deficiencies are as follows: Ki Page 8 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. 1. Stained Drywall, insulation, framing and sheathing: Marcon’s images of staining show conditions of very minor discoloration to absolutely no discoloration on sheathing and framing. Staining at locations where dam tests failed can be easily managed with an application of appropriate sealant at the inside joint of the sill and jamb connection as part of routine maintenance. This is a typical remedy for aluminum window considering the amount of handling they experience from factory to installation to operation and usage. Additionally, Marcon’s photographs did not portray cracking at drywall corners and baseboard that would signify that a substantial amount of water intrusion had taken place. Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect that requires repair. 2. Damaged Window Frame Corner: This condition was found at one second-floor window in Cut 214. Marcon did not attribute this anomaly to causing or contributing to water intrusion at this test location. Opinion: While this is not a condition that should exist, it has not been proven to cause or contribute to water intrusion and therefore is not a construction defect. 3. Sill Pan Flashing: Additionally, Marcon also found at Cut #3 that the sill pan flashing installed behind window fin over building wrap. The sill pan flashing is DuPont FlexWrap NF and the installations instructions call for the Tyvek weather barrier to be cut at the window opening and not wrapped to the inside. The instructions then call for the FlexWrap to be installed over the weather barrier as shown in Marcon’s various stucco cut at window corners. Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect and no repairs are necessary. 4. Tape Flashing at Fin: Marcon found at Cut 215 that the window flashing tape was not installed over the window fin, instead it was applied about %” off the fin and adhered to the FlexWrap. Marcon does not attribute this anomaly to causing or contributing to water intrusion of damage. Opinion: This is an anomaly and should not be considered an installation defect. 5. Window Flashing at Wall Weep: Marcon found an anomaly at Cut 304 where the window flashing was partially installed behind the wall weep. Since the window flashing would be in place prior to the stucco subcontractor starting his work, it is entirely likely that the window flashing was altered when the stucco weep accessory was installed. Since the installed weep accessory was incorrect, this condition can be rectified when the stucco is removed to install a correct weep screed accessory. Opinion: This is not a window installation defect. 6. Tape Flashing not Adhered: Marcon found relatively minor locations at Cuts 210 and 214 where flashing tape at the window jambs was not fully adhered. There is no evidence that this existed elsewhere at the tested windows and no evidence that this condition caused or Ki Page 9 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. contributed to water intrusion and/or damage to building components such as wood sheathing and framing. Opinion: This is not a construction of window installation defect. 7. No Sealant Under Fins: Marcon found that there was no sealant under the sill fin at four of the six test sites (Cuts 207, 210, 214 & 304). This has been and continues to be common practice with aluminum window installations in the voids or the absence of sealant at the sill fin serve to drain water from unexpected leaks at window joinery. Fully sealed sill fins prelude drainage and result in water intrusion directly to the framing and ultimately to unit interiors. Additionally, FMA/AAMA 100 Standard Practice for the Installation of Windows with Flanges or Mounting Fins in Wood Frame Construction recommends gaps in the sealant to manage moisture from window leaks. Furthermore, Marcon did not state that the absence of sealant under window sill fins actually caused or contributed to water intrusion at any of the four test sites. Opinion: This is not a construction or window installation defect. 8. Window Type: In their comments regarding testing at the six windows in wood frame walls, Marcon stated repeatedly that the windows were an incorrect type of window in that the window frame is 1-3/8” deep in a 7/8” stucco application. The windows at this project were aluminum single hung units in a single or mulled configuration. Per the Osceola County Product Approval Form for 2914 Tanzanite Ter., the windows are manufactured by General Aluminum Co. and are model #/Series 1570/1970. These windows carry Florida Product Approval (FPA) numbers of FL15605 and FL15606. Additionally, this document would have been prepared and submitted for permit by the Contractor, contains the FPA numbers for all doors and roofing products. aoe. AINDyA aD a 1247 ne Florida Product Approval documents for General Fr INTERIOR a tan oh I. nee Aluminum windows selected for this project have installation instructions clearly depicting Gy rane HF ay E2tor the window frame depth at the a ny TYP ae ba ye: SIR IALOY AACE FERMI exterior to be greater than ™ volte Las 7/8”. The detail below dated 08/29/11 is from Sheet 3 of 3 and is from the installation instructions for single hung windows Service 1900/1970. Page 10 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. The detail below shows the Architect’s jamb detail and calls for the stucco to be installed tight to the window frame without separation. The detail also calls for a 3/8” deep V-groove filled with caulk, FOLD HOUSE WRAP THROUGH THE WINDOW OPENING, TIGHTLY ‘AROUND JAMB. SECURE TO STRUCTURAL MEMBERS (TH CAPPED NAILS OR TAPE — SEE DETAIL 3, 3.1 & 3.2 ON SSK-" WALL SHEATHING INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION AND PER ENGINEER OF RECORD. \ wood sTup \ po Kea HOUSE WRAP SEAL JAMB FLAN( 3/8" DEEP V-GROOVE GRADE D BUILDING USING SELF ADHERIN wo) FLASHING (PEEL AND SI JECO:_3 COAT (3/8" 2.8 L8/SQ. YARD GALVANIZED SELF FURRED. EXTEND 2° ABOVE ABOVE & SCRATCH, 3/8” GROWN, 1/8” FIN ETAL LATH CONFORMING TO ASTM. C847. BELOW WINDOW FRAME ATIAGH TO STUDS OAL AT co; W/STAPLES — te r nN oR v C ) MINOW IAN’ oa RCOANG NALS (STALL ACCORDANCE. WiK ASTM C-1063-6) WINDOW SILL AND JAMB DETAIL N.S. The window type on this project was open and obvious from the time they were installed to the time the stucco was applied and the painter applied sealant and paint and thereafter. If the installed windows were incorrect for this project, Royal should have noticed them and made a change early in the project. Opinions: 1. Weathermaster provided standard General Aluminum windows and sliding glass doors that the Contactor indicated on the Florida Product Approval form for permitting in Osceola County. 2. The windows are appropriate for both 7/8” and 1-3/8” stucco 3. Stucco can be separated from the aluminum window frame and there are options for a proper perimeter sealant joint Other than Marcon’s allegation that the windows are incorrect for this project, there is no substantive evidence to support the complete removal and replacement of windows that have only been in service for four to five years. To do so would be a perfect example of economic waste. Page 11 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. 501.2 Spray Testing: Marcon conducted their version of a spray test at four windows in wood frame walls where three windows failed and one passed. Marcon stated in their report on page 4 that their investigation would rely on certain standards including the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) publication 501.2 (Wand Spray Test). In the past Marcon have justified the use of this standard by proclaiming that ASTM E2128 Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls allows them to use whatever testing methodologies they see fit “based on their past knowledge and experience.” | agree that ASTM E2128 allows for a “toolbelt of options”, however, it is my professional opinion that it is irresponsible for a testing entity to add a test methodology to its toolbelt that clearly states in its published standards that the AAMA 501.2 wand is not to be used on operable windows. Note 1: This field check method is not appropriate for testing of operable components such as operable window and doors. AAMA 502-02 is the proper test method for field air leakage resistance and water penetration resistance testing of operable windows and doors. Until such time as the language in AAMA 501.2 is changed, the 501.2 wand is not appropriate for testing operable windows, period. Alta objected to Marcon’s water testing methodology stating, “The reason for AAMA’s precaution is that the concentrated water pressure produced by the AAMA nozzle is typically much greater than can be resisted by the weather-stripped joints between the operating sash and fixed window operating sash and the fix window frame, which greatly exceeds the capacity of the window and therefore often results in test-induced water entry.” Opinion: The use of the AAMA 501.2 Wand test on operable widows is inappropriate and therefore Marcon’s reported test results are not valid. Repair Recommendations: Marcon’s recommendation for repair as stated in their reports includes removal and replacement of all windows in wood frame walls. This appears to be based primarily upon Marcon’s opinion that the windows are inappropriate for 7/8” stucco applications. As for windows in masonry walls, Marcon performed exterior testing at 6 windows and reported what appeared to be secondary sealant adhesion issues. The performed a water testing at a one of these 6 windows in a masonry wall and found damage to the wood buck. There is no evidence and it is unreasonable to assume that this same condition exists at the remaining windows. Summary Opinions: Notwithstanding the opinions noted above in this report, | present the following summary opinions: Ki Page 12 of 17 RHBj Consulting, LLC. Marcon’s use of the AAMA 501.2 Spray Wand was improper and led to unreliable test results. Water intrusion at this project is well documented by Marcon as the result of failed stucco application and the lack of a proper window perimeter sealant joint. Water testing on 5 windows out of a reported total of 473 windows equating to approximately 1.1% of the combined total at the 10 buildings where Weathermaster was responsible for providing and installing windows is insufficient testing and fails to provide a reliable basis upon which to extrapolate to the entire project. Marcon