Preview
Filing # 134426924 E-Filed 09/13/2021 09:27:11 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vv. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC;
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. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S
IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida
corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a
Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING,
INC., a Florida corporation;
Defendants.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, f/k/a AVH
ACQUISITION,
Crossclaim Plaintiff,
Vv.
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE,
127239812.1
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. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATION &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a
Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING &
PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida
corporation;
Crossclaim Defendants.
/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation; DON KING’S
CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
Vv.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida
corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a
Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HELBERG
ENGERPRISES, 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; E.R.O.
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation;
LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation;
and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.
127239812.1
DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC.’S
NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORT
Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes LLC (“Royal Oak”), by and through its
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Case Management Order dated April 9,
2021, and hereby gives Notice of Filing its Expert Report signed and dated September 13, 2021
attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James Michael Walls
James Michael Walls
Florida Bar No, 706272
Lannie D. Hough Jr.
Florida Bar No. 149470
Robin H. Leavengood
Florida Bar No. 0547751
Brian C. Porter
Florida Bar No. 0120282
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33607-5780
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
mwalls@carltonfields.com
lhough@earltonfields.com
rleavengood@carltonfields.com
bporter@carltonfields.com
nbonilla@carltonfields.com
johnson@carltonfields.com
bwoolard@carltonfields.com
127239812.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13 day of September, 2021, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the Florida e-filing Portal, with electronic
filing notices to all counsel of record.
/s/ James Michael Walls
Attorney
127239812.1
alta
engineering company
www.altaengineeringco.com
September 10, 2021
Robin H. Leavengood via electronic mail to: RLeavengood@carltonfields.com
Carlton Fields
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000
Tampa, Florida 33607-5780
Evaluation Report
Case Style: Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Royal
Oak Homes, LLC
Case No.: 2020-CA-002942-ON
On behalf of: Royal Oaks Homes
Villas at Emerald Lake
Various
Kissimmee, Florida 34758
alta engineering company has been retained by Carlton Fields, counsel to
Royal Oaks Homes (ROH), to evaluate the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the construction
of the Villas at Emerald Lakes townhome buildings in Kissimmee, Florida. This evaluation re-
port includes a summary of the project information, our pertinent observations, and our
evaluation of the allegations, as well as our review of the damage estimate.
alta engineering company
11329 distribution avenue west
Jacksonville, florida 32256
904-880-0301
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 2
1.0 Project Information
1.1 Document Review
As part of this evaluation, Alta reviewed the following provided information:
] Construction drawings prepared by Miller Einhouse Rymer & Boyd, titled Con-
struction Plans for Emerald Lakes, dated December 1, 2005, rev. April 18, 2007.
2. Building Floor Plans prepared by Brown + Company Architecture, titled Royal
Oak Homes—Townhomes, various dates.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Imperial Building Corp., dat-
ed January 26, 2011.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Wolfs Irrigation & Landscape,
dated January 26, 2011.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Weathermaster Building
Products, Inc., dated January 31, 2014.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Advanced Wrapping & Con-
crete Solutions of Central FL, Inc., undated.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Don Kings Concrete FL Corp.,
undated.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Hugh MacDonald Construc-
tion, undated.
Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Premier Plastering of Central
Florida, undated.
10. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and TGK Stucco, Inc., undated.
1 Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Advanced Wrapping & Con-
crete Solutions of Central FL, Inc., undated.
12. Proposal prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake—
Construction Defects Investigation Proposal, dated December 11, 2019.
13. Notice prepared by Ball Janik, titled Notice of Construction Defect Claim Pursu-
ant to Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, dated March 12, 2020.
14 Report prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake—
Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 28, 2020.
15 Complaint prepared by Ball Janik, LLP, titled Complaint and Demand for Jury
Trial, dated November 23, 2020.
16 Answers prepared by Carlton Fields, P.A., titled Royal Oak Homes, LLC’s Answer
and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Crossclaim Complaint, dated De-
cember 29, 2020.
7 Report prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake—
Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021.
18. Deposition Transcript of Felix Martin—Vol. |, dated June 15, 2021.
19 Deposition Transcript of Felix Martin—Vol. II, dated June 16, 2021.
20. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Weintraub Inspections & Fo-
rensics, Inc., undated.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 3
1.2 Background Information
The subject townhome community contains (12) townhome buildings. The community
was initially developed and constructed by The Damilola Group (TDG), who construct-
ed the first (2) buildings, containing (12) units, in 2008. Royal Oak Homes (ROH) con-
structed the remaining (10) buildings, containing (76) units, between 2015 and 2017
{ROH Buildings).
Table 1 depicts the permit dates for each of the buildings. A site map depicting the
townhome buildings is shown in Figure 1.
All trade work associated with the construction of the buildings was subcontracted.
ROH did not self-perform any construction work.
The Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) engaged Mar-
con Forensics (Marcon) to perform an evaluation of the buildings. Marcon prepared a
report summarizing their findings on April 2, 2021. (Marcon Report)
The Association subsequently engaged SMH Construction, LLC (SMH) to prepare a cost
estimate to address the concerns raised in the Marcon Report. (SMH Estimate)
You have requested that Alta review the Marcon Report and the SMH Estimate and
provide responsive opinions.
] Buildin ode Review
Construction of the buildings would have been governed by various editions of the
Florida Building Code, depending on the date of construction, starting with the 2010
Florida Building Code (2010 FBC) for the buildings permitted prior to July 30, 2015, and
the 2014 Florida Building Code (2014 FBC) for those constructed thereafter.
1.4 Observations
Representatives of Alta performed visual observations of the community on April 8,
2021, and August 30, 2021.
Alta was not notified of and therefore did not attend the destructive testing and water
testing completed by Marcon. Because Alta did not contemporaneously observe the
testing, this precluded our ability to examine the active incidence of water during wa-
ter testing, the manner in which water testing was conducted, the layering of re-
moved components, the removal of direct-applied stucco, tactile evaluation of the
uncovered wood structural components, and components of the wood structure that
provide load transfer.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 4
Line No. Address Building Permit Permit Date
2851-2865 Sunstone Drive P15-001561 3/18/2015
2869-2883 Sunstone Drive P16-000125 1/7/2016
2887-2893 Sunstone Drive P16-002240 3/30/2016
2897-2911 Sunstone Drive P16-001634 3/10/2016
2915-2929 Sunstone Drive P16-002496 4/8/2016
2850-2864 Tanzanite Terrace N/A N/A
2866-2872 Tanzanite Terrace N/A N/A
2876-2890 Tanzanite Terrace P15-001333 3/11/2015
2892-2906 Tanzanite Terrace 4005777 10/26/2014
10 2908-2922 Tanzanite Terrace P14-002519 5/9/2014
1 2926-2940 Tanzanite Terrace P14-001066 3/5/2014
12 2942-2956 Tanzanite Terrace P16-004921 7/11/2016
Tablet: Permit Information.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 5
7
ExT
oe
$2 | Marti
0
esrs
ce
is
ae
Ae
o
wo
a cD)
ee
Y
iE
mi a
2926-2940
Figure 1: Site Plan. ROH Buildings are outlined in red. TDG Buildings are outlined in yellow.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 6
] Relevant Buildin: constr tion Overview
The ROH Buildings are 2-story structures. The exterior walls are constructed with first floor
concrete masonry units (CMU) supported by shallow, conventionally reinforced strip
footings. The second floor walls are wood framed and sheathed with oriented strand
board (OSB) or plywood.
The first floors are unreinforced concrete slabs on prepared fill. Elevated floor and roof
structures are comprised of pre-engineered wood trusses decked with OSB.
The exterior veneer is portland cement plaster (stucco). The stucco is painted. Stucco
grounds are plastic.
Stucco is directly applied to the CMU walls. Stucco is applied over paper-backed steel
lath (PBL) and a synthetic weather resistant barrier (WRB) atop the wood framed walls.
The windows are flashed with self-adhesive, rubberized-asphalt flashing tape. The WRB
is drained by mid-wall weep screed accessories positioned at the top of the first floor
CMU walls.
Windows are aluminum framed, single hung assemblies with insulated glass lites typi-
cally manufactured by MI Windows. Windows are installed in both single and mulled
arrangements. Some buildings have first and second floor decorative shutters.
Roofs are clad with asphalt-impregnated, fiberglass architectural shingles manufac-
tured by CertainTeed, over an asphalt-impregnated felt underlayment with coated
steel perimeter flashings and galvanized steel concealed 5x5 flashings. Attic ventila-
tion is provided by perforated vinyl soffit panels and coated steel off-ridge vents.
Photographs 1-4 depict the typical exterior elevations of the buildings.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 7
ae
&
S
eS
oe
en
Lt 4&
<
a ee ene Shae a ee:
Photograph 1: Typical front elevation. Photograph 2: Typical side 1 elevation.
eet
hist
s
=
Photograph 3: Typical rear elevation. Photograph 4: Typical Side 2 elevation.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 8
2.0 Construction Defect Allegation Response
Based on Alta's review of the provided information and our site observations, Alta of-
fers the following opinions as to defect allegations set forth in the Marcon Report. Each
allegation is individually addressed under separate headings, with the applicable cita-
tion from the Marcon Report presented in italic font, followed by Alta’s response in
plain type.
2.0.1 Extrapolation of Test Data
Prior to Alta’s responses to each of the individual allegations, it should be noted that
Alta generally disputes the use of an extremely limited number of tested or sampled
locations to extrapolate the alleged deficient conditions as likely to be present at oth-
er building locations. The selected test locations are often biased because they were
selected based on locations of reported, observed, or known distress or leaks. Further,
the manner in which the testing is typically conducted by soliciting permission of unit
owners is also biased, because owners with concerns are more likely to avail their units
for destructive testing than those that do not perceive that their unit has any construc-
tion-related concerns.
Further, the subject buildings were constructed over a period of approximately (3)-
years under different codes and using different subcontractors and sub-subcontractors
and even different crewmen working for the same subcontractor. As such, the findings
at one location are not extrapolatable and not inherently representative of other
buildings built at other times by other subcontractors or other crews of the same sub-
contractors.
The test sample sizes were so limited as to constitute approximately 1-percent or less of
the population size of a particular building component. These sample sizes are not sta-
tistically significant by any measure and the data gathered from them are not scientifi-
cally useful or appropriate to extrapolate to other untested areas of the community.
While Alta may not remark as to the inadequacy of the testing for extrapolation in the
narrative for each item, we generally object as to the statistical significance of the
testing with regard to every alleged defect. More testing is required to establish a sta-
tistically significant data pool from which a reasonable inference can be drawn re-
garding the likelihood that any of the alleged defects are common throughout all of
the buildings.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 9
2.1 Roofs—Asphalt Shingles
2.1.1 Drip Edge Flange
Marcon Report Section 1.0101 states:
At one out of four roofs tested for this condition, the required 4-inch wide strip of
sealant from the eave flange to the underlayment was insufficiently placed. This
allows water fo penetrate and damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC:
R905.2.8.5)
Alta Response:
The roof underlayment is permitted by the FBC to be installed below the drip edge,
provided mastic is applied across the lap joint between materials. This is by far the
most common method of shingle roof underlayment installation in Florida. Marcon al-
leges (1) location (Cut 308) where the mastic was insufficiently placed. Alta’s review of
the data indicates that mastic is present and extended onto the drip flashing. (Figure
2) In areas that were unaffected by leaks through diverter flashings (which is discussed
in Section 2.1.8), no damage along the drip edges was observed at any of the (5) de-
structively tested locations. (Figure 3) As such, it is apparent that the mastic, as ap-
plied, is providing adequate protection to the roof edge.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Photo Name: VE}mD20068.1P6
Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2889 Sunstone Dr
Area: Roof
Cutt 308
Roof Eave
Roofs
1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles
1.0101 Missing/insufficient 4-inch roof cement over edge
flashing flange: Inadequate / incomplete application of roofing
cement along drip edge flashing
Figure 2: Mastic over drip edge.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 10
Photo Name: VEjm020078.)PG
Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM
Phase / Builder: ROH
Bullding: 2889 Sunstone Dr
Area: Roof
©
Cutt 308
Roof Eave
Roofs
1,01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles
1.0190 Damaged roof sheathing: Exposed roof sheathing.
a>. fia
Figure 3: No damage to sheathing.
2.1.2 Shingle Overhang
Marcon Report Section 1.0102 states:
At all roofs tested (four out of four locations), shingles do not overhang eave
minimum 1/2", nor are they trimmed flush with the “D: style eave flashing, as re-
quired by CertainTeed. This allows water fo penetrate along the eave and
damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1)
Alta Response:
CertainTeed's Master Shingle Applicator Manual indicates that a 1/2” shingle over-
hang be left overhanging rakes and eaves if a drip edge is being used. However, the
National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) calls for shingles to be installed flush
with extended drip edge flashing, such as the type installed at the subject site. Flush
installation of shingle starters with extended drip edges is the customary manner of roof
installation throughout Florida. A shingle overhang is typically required when an L-
shaped drip edge or no drip edge flashing is installed. Interestingly, Marcon's photo-
graphs depict several instances of the shingles overhanging the drip edge. (Figure 4)
There is no damage resultant from this alleged condition. As such, it is apparent that
the shingle roof covering is performing as intended and that this particular concern is
without effect on the performance of the roof covering.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 11
Photo Name: VEjmD20050JP6,
Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2889 Sunstone Dr
Area: Roof
Roof ave
Roofs
1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles
1.0102 Shingles do not overhang edge Shingles not
installed nvinimum 1/2" past edge flash of flush with "D"
style eave flashing.
Figure 4: Typical shingle overhang with extended drip overhang.
2.1.3 Starter Shingle Attachment
Marcon Report Section 1.0105 states:
At all roofs tested (four out of four), the starter strip fasteners were installed less
than 3 inches from the edge of the roof, creating an unsealed opening through
the eave flashing. This allows water to penetrate and damage the roof sheath-
ing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1)
Alta Response:
The starter shingle fasteners were typically installed less than 3-inches from the leading
edge of the roof. This attachment provides superior resistance to wind uplift along the
eaves. A line of roofing mastic was installed between the starter and the leading edge
of the first shingle course, rendering the position of the starter strip nail behind the strip
without consequence regarding water penetration concerns.
There has been no observed or reported diminution in the performance of the roof
covering based on its attachment. No staining or decay of the OSB sheathing was un-
covered below this condition at any of the destructively tested locations that were not
common with diverter flashings.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 12
2.1.4 Roof Un rl ment at W. l
Marcon Report Section 1.0130 states:
At the one diverter location tested, the roof underlayment was not furned up
the wall, creating an unsealed intersection between the wall and the roof. This
allows water to penetrate and damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC:
R903.1)
Alta Response:
The roof to wall interface at this location is protected by an “L” shaped diverter flash-
ing, set in roofing mastic atop the underlayment, as is customary roofing practice.
No staining or decay of the OSB sheathing or soffit framing was uncovered below the
single location where this condition was reported to occur. (Figures 5 & 6)
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Photo Name: VEjm030011. JPG
Date: 1/10/2020 Reviewed By: IM
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2863 Sunstone Or
Area: Front Elevation
Cuts 313
Roof Diverter / Floor Line Tran: ion
Roofs
LOI: Roofs Asphalt Shingles
1.0190 Damaged roof sheathing: Exposed roof sheathing.
Figure 5: No damage to soffit sheathing or framing.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 13
Photo Name: VE}mD30033.JPG
Date: 1/10/2020 Reviewed By: IM
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2863 Sunstone Br
Area: Front Elevation
cut: 343
Wall above Entry
Roofs
1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles
1.0130 Underlayment not turned up at wall: Underlayment not
visible behind "L" flashing along confined rake wail.
Figure 6: No damage to sheathing.
2.1.5 Shingle Fastener:
Marcon Report Section 1.0150 states:
At all roofs tested (four out of four locations), shingles were either installed with
less nails than required, or the nails were improperly spaced across the shingle,
in violation of CertainTeea's installation instructions. This does not properly an-
chor the shingle. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1)
Alta Response:
The installation instructions referred to by Marcon were not provided for Alta’s review.
Accordingly, Alta obtained the Florida Product Approval (FPA) FL5444-R7 for the shin-
gles installed at the subject site. The FPA was obtained through their submission of
Evaluation Test Report 3532.09.05-r8, prepared by Exterior Research and Design LLC
(ERD Report). The ERD Report is published to demonstrate CertainTeed shingles’ com-
pliance with the requirements of the FBC. Section 6.3.3, Figure 13-4 of the ERD Report
requires the installation of (4) nails per shingle in wind zones up to 150 mph (ASD) or 194
mph (LRFD) Based on this information, (4) nails are adequate for installation at the sub-
ject site, where the design wind speed is 150 mph (LRFD).
All shingles photographed by Marcon contained at least (4) nails and are therefore
complaint with the FPA.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 14
2.1.6 Overdriven Shingle Fasteners
Marcon Report Section 1.0153 states:
At one roof tested (out of four locations), shingles fasteners were overdriven, in
violation of CertainTeed’s installation instructions. This does not properly anchor
the shingle and creates a pathway for water intrusion. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1)
Alta Response:
The Marcon photographs indicate the discovery of (1) location (Cut 308) out of (4) lo-
cations where overdriven fastener nails were identified. The single discovered location
suggests this condition is anomalous rather than evidence of a systemic concern. Ad-
ditional testing would be required to establish if the overdriven fasteners have any sta-
tistically significant prevalence.
Marcon has not performed any testing to demonstrate that the installed composite
connection of the shingles to the wood roof deck is insufficient to withstand anticipat-
ed wind loads. It is reasonable for some shingle fasteners to be overdriven, because of
the fluctuating air pressure within the compressor used to supply air to the nail guns
used to install shingles. In fact, Alta has never observed a shingle roof installation that
did not have some overdriven nails. Notably, the Marcon Report does not contain any
data that would indicate that overdriven fasteners were systemically present. Isolated
overdriven fasteners are unlikely to affect the overall performance of the roof shingle
attachment, especially in the instance where (6) nails were installed per shingle in lieu
of the required (4) nails. The fastener concerns have not resulted in any observed or
reported performance failure of the roof over its life to date.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
2.1.7 Starter Shingle
Marcon Report Section 1.0161 states:
At one roof tested (out of four locations), starter shingles were installed without
removing the lower tabs, in violation of CertainTeed's installation instructions.
(2010, 2014 FRC: R903.1)
Alta Response:
Marcon’s photographic documentation indicates (1) location where this condition ex-
ists (Cut 302). The single discovered location suggests this condition is anomalous ra-
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 15
ther than evidence of a systemic concern.
The manner in which the starter shingles were installed at this single location by inver-
sion of normal shingles is a common practice that provides a continuous backing for
the first shingle course. Marcon’s photograph (Figure 7) depicting this condition reveals
an adhesive bond line ~1-inch from the edge of the roof, which would preclude lifting
of first course of the shingle tabs. As such, the installation of the inverted shingle starter
course is not problematic and provides the same protection for the roof as would a
typical starter course.
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Photo Name: VEjm010073.JPG
Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM i
Phase / Builder: ROH Co
Building: 2952 Tanzanite Terrace
Area: Front Elevation
Cut: 302
Low Roof at Entry
Roofs
1.01: Roofs Asphait Shingles
20161 Improper starter shingle installation: Starter course
installed witheut removing lower tabs. fostalled inverted.
Figure 7: Marcon Report photograph depicting the starter shingle.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 16
2.1.8 Diverter Flashing
Marcon Report Section 1.1022 states:
At all three roof diverters tested, the diverter fold was not sealed. This allowed
water fo penetrate and has damaged roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903.1)
Alta Response:
Marcon destructively tested (3) of the (56) total roof diverters. This equates to 5% of the
total roof diverters. Of the (3) test locations, only (1) revealed damage to the plywood
roof deck (Cut 301). (Figure 8) Notably, no damage to the adjacent wall sheathing
was uncovered at any of the (3) test locations.
Alta agrees that the cause of the damage at Cut 301 was an unsealed diverter flash-
Phote Name: VEimDi0007 JPG ss
Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM
Phase { Builder: ROH
Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace
Area: Front Elevation
out: 201
Low Roof at Entry
Roofs
1.10: Roots Flashing
4.1090 Damaged roof sheathing: Damaged sheathing below
diverter. Damage extends into 2nd truss bay along fascia.
Figure 8: Damage to sheathing below roof diverter.
Photo Name: VEjmD 10038196 os
Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM
Pa
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace
Area: Front Elevation:
S
‘cut 30
Low Roof at Entry
Roofs
1.10: Roofs Flashing
4.1022 Unsealed/Missing diverter at confined rake termination
of "L" flashing: Unsealed diverter at termination of confined
rake "L" flashing,
Figure 9: Unsealed roof diverter.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 17
ing lap. (Figure 9) This area should be repaired.
Alta’s site observations identified staining of the soffits below (13) other roof diverter
locations, which is a likely indication of water leakage through the unsealed diverters.
These locations should also be repaired by the removal and replacement of the roof
covering, as necessary, to expose and replace the extent of damaged decking and
fascia. Additionally, the sheathing below alll diverter flashings should be exposed and
observed by removal of the underlying soffit segment. Any areas revealing staining or
decay should be addressed by removal and replacement of the roof coverings and
damaged wood elements, as necessary. This investigation has not been completed
by Marcon, and therefore the extent of damage caused by the diverter flashing laps
cannot be discerned. Because Marcon only discovered damage at only (1) or 33-
percent of the locations that they tested, the initial sampling does not suggest a sys-
temic concern.
Regardless of the sheathing condition, all diverter flashing laps should be sealed.
This allegation is associated with the work of the roofing subcontractor.
2.2 Fenestrations
2.2.1 ill Dam T t
Marcon Report Section 2.0101 states:
A sill dam test using the AAMA 511 protocol produced product leaks at one out
of four windows tested in wood walls for this condition.
A sill dam test using the AAMA 511 protocol produced product leaks at one out
of one window tested in a masonry wall for this condition. (2010, 2014 FRC:
R703.1)
Alta Response:
Alta was not provided notice of, and therefore did not attend, Marcon's destructive
and water testing. Consequently, we were not able to view the testing or document
the contemporaneous conditions that would have otherwise allowed us to validate
the test procedures, independently assess the source of the reported leaks, and tacitly
evaluate the alleged staining/damage to the building components.
A total of (5) out of (473) total windows were tested, representing approximately 1.1%
of the population. Testing 1.1-percent of the window population does not provide sta-
tistically significant information that would be useful for extrapolation and subsequent
conclusions anticipating similar performance of the population of windows throughout
the community.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 18
Marcon reported “leaks” during the sill dam tests at (2) of the (5) tested windows. One
leak was reported at a second floor window and one leak was reported at a first floor
window. In both instances, the leaks amounted to drips of water that did not even wet
the full width of the hydrion paper used to demonstrate the leak after 4 to 9-minutes
(Figure 10) Such water entry is not indicative of leaks likely to result in damaging water
contact to the wood building structure during typical storm events.
The wood sheathing and drywall exposed below the second floor reported “leak” lo-
cation at Cut 201 did not reveal indications of prior moisture contact or damage to
the interior finishes, the wood wall framing, or the OSB wall sheathing below the win-
dow opening. (Figure 11)
Staining was present on the paper-facing of the radiant barrier below the tested first
floor window sill. (Figure 12) However, as mentioned above, water entry through the
window frame was de minimis. The more likely source of water leakage at this location
is the unsealed joint between the window sill and the stucco clad CMU sill. (Figure 13)
This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the window installation subcontractor
and/or the window manufacturer.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Photo Name: VEmiD10055.1P6
Date: 1/8/2920 Reviewed By: Mi
Phase / Suilder: ROH
Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace ie
Area: Rear Elevation
cut: 201
Rear Wail atnr
Fenestrations
2.01: Fenestrations Window a
2.0161 Window product fails ANMA 511 dam test: AAMA
siif dam test: 0920 - 0930. Dams filled with 7/16" and 9/16” of
water,
Result: FAIL, 4-min leak at right sill / jamb frame corner.
Figure 10: Bead of water at sill test dam.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 19
Photo Name: VErniD10040JPG
Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi
Phase / Builder: ROH
Bullding: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace
Area: Rear Elevation
Cut: 201 3 =
Rear Wall
Fenestrations
Ol: Fenestrations Window.
2.0192 Damage to wall components (drywall, insulation, ete.):
Separation at jamb and at window to sill stoole. Staining of
wall OSB under mullion.
Figure 11: Lack of damage below location of sill dam “leak”.
Photo Name: VEmID10103.1PG
Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi
Phase / Builder: ROH om ss
Building: 2934 Tanzanite Terrace ee | ne
Brea: Front Elevation —
202
Front Wall
Fenestrations
.O1; Fenestrations Window
2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Staining and bio-organinc
growth on window bucks and on backside of insulation.
Figure 12: Marcon Report image depicting organic growth on radiant barrier at
first floor window.
Photo Name: VEmiD10154.19G
Bete: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2934 Tanzanite Terrace
Area: Front Elevation
Cut: 203 =
Front Wall
Walls
a
3.02: Walls Stucco Over Concrete Block
3.0201 Lack of isolation/improper application of primary
sealant around window: Lack of isolation between the window
frame and the stucco prevents the proper application of
primary sealant
Figure 13: Marcon Report image depicting void between window and stucco sill.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 20
2.2.2 Window Fails AAMA 501.2 Spray Test
Marcon Report Section 2.0102 states:
Spray test using an AAMA 501.2 wand produced installation leaks at three out
of four windows tested in wood walls for this condition.
Spray test using an AAMA 501.2 wand produced installation leaks at one out of
one window tested in a masonry wall for this condition. (2010, 2014 FRC: R703. 1)
Alta Response:
A total of (5) of the (473) windows were “spray” tested. The tested windows represent
approximately 1.1% of the population. The spray tested windows are the same as
those that were sill dam tested. As previously mentioned, testing 1.1-percent of the
window population does not provide statistically significant information that would be
useful for extrapolation and subsequent conclusions anticipating similar performance
of the population of windows throughout the community.
As previously mentioned, Alta was not present during the testing conducted, thus limit-
ing our ability to discern the viability and results of the testing.
Alta objects to the water testing methodology conducted by Marcon using an AAMA
501.2 spray nozzle to test an operable window. AAMA 501.2—Quality Assurance and
Diagnostic Water Leakage Field Check of Installed Storefronts, Curtain Walls, and
Sloped Glazing Systems prescribes a test procedure and equipment for the testing of
fixed glass fenestrations. The scope and purpose section of AAMA 501.2 states:
(Underlining added by Alta for emphasis.)
NOTE: This field check method is not appropriate for testing of operable compo-
nents such as operable windows 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.
Based on the foregoing, the test method employed by Marcon is not appropriately
used for testing operable windows. The reason for AAMA's precaution is that the con-
centrated water pressure produced by the AAMA nozzle is typically much greater
than can be resisted by the weather-siripped joints between the operable sash and
the fixed window frame, which greatly exceeds the capacity of the window and
therefore often results in test-induced water entry. Water entry through operable win-
dow frames during an AAMA 501.2 test may not occur during standardized pressure
testing intended for this purpose, as specifically governed by AAMA 502—Voluntary
Specification of Field Testing of Window sand Sliding Glass Doors, which uses a grid of
low pressure misting spray nozzles to introduce water to the surface of the window
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 21
specimen and a vacuum chamber to precisely regulate the differential test pressure
across the window frame.
Notably, the condition of the wood sheathing and drywall exposed below the window
tests conducted at second floor windows did not reveal indications of prior moisture
contact or damage to the interior finishes, wood wall framing, or OSB wall sheathing
below the window openings. (Figures 14-17)
The only stain identified by Marcon on the wood framed walls below the tested win-
dows was a light stain on the sill plate, approximately 2-feet below the window, with
no accompanying stain or decay trail from the window opening above. (Figure 14) As
such, this stain does not appear to be associated with a window leak. The stain is com-
mon with the interior floor surface, suggesting the possibility that it was wetted by unit
occupants or during construction, prior to dry-in.
The lack of staining on the window sill and framing below the other windows tested in-
dicates that prior leaks during natural events have not occurred.
Based on the above, the testing completed by Marcon is not valid for drawing conclu-
sions regarding the performance of the windows or their flashings throughout the com-
munity. No evidence was presented that the fenestrations are defective and require
removal and replacement.
This alleged deficiency arises from the owner's lack of maintenance, the painter, and
the window manufacturer, supplier, and installer.
No repair is required to address this allegation.
Photo Name: VEmiD20025.°¢
Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: M4!
Phase / Builder: ROH
Building: 2927 Sunstone Or
avea: Rear Elevation
cut 206
Rear wall
Fenestrations:
2.01: fenestrations window
2.0151 Damage to wall framing: Damaged silf plate under
weindowe,
Figure 14: Marcon Report photograph depicting a stain on the sill plate below a window.
Evaluation Report September 10, 2021
Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 22
Photo Name: VEmIN20023.1°G
Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: Mi
#
Phase / Builder: ROH
Preview
Filing # 134426924 E-Filed 09/13/2021 09:27:11 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC; 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. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION, Crossclaim Plaintiff, Vv. ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, 127239812.1 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. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Crossclaim Defendants. / WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, Vv. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENGERPRISES, 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; E.R.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation; and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Defendants. 127239812.1 DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC.’S NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORT Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes LLC (“Royal Oak”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Case Management Order dated April 9, 2021, and hereby gives Notice of Filing its Expert Report signed and dated September 13, 2021 attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James Michael Walls James Michael Walls Florida Bar No, 706272 Lannie D. Hough Jr. Florida Bar No. 149470 Robin H. Leavengood Florida Bar No. 0547751 Brian C. Porter Florida Bar No. 0120282 CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Telephone: (813) 223-7000 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 mwalls@carltonfields.com lhough@earltonfields.com rleavengood@carltonfields.com bporter@carltonfields.com nbonilla@carltonfields.com johnson@carltonfields.com bwoolard@carltonfields.com 127239812.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13 day of September, 2021, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the Florida e-filing Portal, with electronic filing notices to all counsel of record. /s/ James Michael Walls Attorney 127239812.1 alta engineering company www.altaengineeringco.com September 10, 2021 Robin H. Leavengood via electronic mail to: RLeavengood@carltonfields.com Carlton Fields 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Ste. 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607-5780 Evaluation Report Case Style: Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Royal Oak Homes, LLC Case No.: 2020-CA-002942-ON On behalf of: Royal Oaks Homes Villas at Emerald Lake Various Kissimmee, Florida 34758 alta engineering company has been retained by Carlton Fields, counsel to Royal Oaks Homes (ROH), to evaluate the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the construction of the Villas at Emerald Lakes townhome buildings in Kissimmee, Florida. This evaluation re- port includes a summary of the project information, our pertinent observations, and our evaluation of the allegations, as well as our review of the damage estimate. alta engineering company 11329 distribution avenue west Jacksonville, florida 32256 904-880-0301 Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 2 1.0 Project Information 1.1 Document Review As part of this evaluation, Alta reviewed the following provided information: ] Construction drawings prepared by Miller Einhouse Rymer & Boyd, titled Con- struction Plans for Emerald Lakes, dated December 1, 2005, rev. April 18, 2007. 2. Building Floor Plans prepared by Brown + Company Architecture, titled Royal Oak Homes—Townhomes, various dates. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Imperial Building Corp., dat- ed January 26, 2011. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Wolfs Irrigation & Landscape, dated January 26, 2011. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Weathermaster Building Products, Inc., dated January 31, 2014. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Advanced Wrapping & Con- crete Solutions of Central FL, Inc., undated. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Don Kings Concrete FL Corp., undated. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Hugh MacDonald Construc- tion, undated. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Premier Plastering of Central Florida, undated. 10. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and TGK Stucco, Inc., undated. 1 Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Advanced Wrapping & Con- crete Solutions of Central FL, Inc., undated. 12. Proposal prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake— Construction Defects Investigation Proposal, dated December 11, 2019. 13. Notice prepared by Ball Janik, titled Notice of Construction Defect Claim Pursu- ant to Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, dated March 12, 2020. 14 Report prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake— Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 28, 2020. 15 Complaint prepared by Ball Janik, LLP, titled Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, dated November 23, 2020. 16 Answers prepared by Carlton Fields, P.A., titled Royal Oak Homes, LLC’s Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Crossclaim Complaint, dated De- cember 29, 2020. 7 Report prepared by Marcon Forensics, titled Villas at Emerald Lake— Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021. 18. Deposition Transcript of Felix Martin—Vol. |, dated June 15, 2021. 19 Deposition Transcript of Felix Martin—Vol. II, dated June 16, 2021. 20. Subcontract between Royal Oak Homes, LLC and Weintraub Inspections & Fo- rensics, Inc., undated. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 3 1.2 Background Information The subject townhome community contains (12) townhome buildings. The community was initially developed and constructed by The Damilola Group (TDG), who construct- ed the first (2) buildings, containing (12) units, in 2008. Royal Oak Homes (ROH) con- structed the remaining (10) buildings, containing (76) units, between 2015 and 2017 {ROH Buildings). Table 1 depicts the permit dates for each of the buildings. A site map depicting the townhome buildings is shown in Figure 1. All trade work associated with the construction of the buildings was subcontracted. ROH did not self-perform any construction work. The Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) engaged Mar- con Forensics (Marcon) to perform an evaluation of the buildings. Marcon prepared a report summarizing their findings on April 2, 2021. (Marcon Report) The Association subsequently engaged SMH Construction, LLC (SMH) to prepare a cost estimate to address the concerns raised in the Marcon Report. (SMH Estimate) You have requested that Alta review the Marcon Report and the SMH Estimate and provide responsive opinions. ] Buildin ode Review Construction of the buildings would have been governed by various editions of the Florida Building Code, depending on the date of construction, starting with the 2010 Florida Building Code (2010 FBC) for the buildings permitted prior to July 30, 2015, and the 2014 Florida Building Code (2014 FBC) for those constructed thereafter. 1.4 Observations Representatives of Alta performed visual observations of the community on April 8, 2021, and August 30, 2021. Alta was not notified of and therefore did not attend the destructive testing and water testing completed by Marcon. Because Alta did not contemporaneously observe the testing, this precluded our ability to examine the active incidence of water during wa- ter testing, the manner in which water testing was conducted, the layering of re- moved components, the removal of direct-applied stucco, tactile evaluation of the uncovered wood structural components, and components of the wood structure that provide load transfer. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 4 Line No. Address Building Permit Permit Date 2851-2865 Sunstone Drive P15-001561 3/18/2015 2869-2883 Sunstone Drive P16-000125 1/7/2016 2887-2893 Sunstone Drive P16-002240 3/30/2016 2897-2911 Sunstone Drive P16-001634 3/10/2016 2915-2929 Sunstone Drive P16-002496 4/8/2016 2850-2864 Tanzanite Terrace N/A N/A 2866-2872 Tanzanite Terrace N/A N/A 2876-2890 Tanzanite Terrace P15-001333 3/11/2015 2892-2906 Tanzanite Terrace 4005777 10/26/2014 10 2908-2922 Tanzanite Terrace P14-002519 5/9/2014 1 2926-2940 Tanzanite Terrace P14-001066 3/5/2014 12 2942-2956 Tanzanite Terrace P16-004921 7/11/2016 Tablet: Permit Information. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 5 7 ExT oe $2 | Marti 0 esrs ce is ae Ae o wo a cD) ee Y iE mi a 2926-2940 Figure 1: Site Plan. ROH Buildings are outlined in red. TDG Buildings are outlined in yellow. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 6 ] Relevant Buildin: constr tion Overview The ROH Buildings are 2-story structures. The exterior walls are constructed with first floor concrete masonry units (CMU) supported by shallow, conventionally reinforced strip footings. The second floor walls are wood framed and sheathed with oriented strand board (OSB) or plywood. The first floors are unreinforced concrete slabs on prepared fill. Elevated floor and roof structures are comprised of pre-engineered wood trusses decked with OSB. The exterior veneer is portland cement plaster (stucco). The stucco is painted. Stucco grounds are plastic. Stucco is directly applied to the CMU walls. Stucco is applied over paper-backed steel lath (PBL) and a synthetic weather resistant barrier (WRB) atop the wood framed walls. The windows are flashed with self-adhesive, rubberized-asphalt flashing tape. The WRB is drained by mid-wall weep screed accessories positioned at the top of the first floor CMU walls. Windows are aluminum framed, single hung assemblies with insulated glass lites typi- cally manufactured by MI Windows. Windows are installed in both single and mulled arrangements. Some buildings have first and second floor decorative shutters. Roofs are clad with asphalt-impregnated, fiberglass architectural shingles manufac- tured by CertainTeed, over an asphalt-impregnated felt underlayment with coated steel perimeter flashings and galvanized steel concealed 5x5 flashings. Attic ventila- tion is provided by perforated vinyl soffit panels and coated steel off-ridge vents. Photographs 1-4 depict the typical exterior elevations of the buildings. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 7 ae & S eS oe en Lt 4& < a ee ene Shae a ee: Photograph 1: Typical front elevation. Photograph 2: Typical side 1 elevation. eet hist s = Photograph 3: Typical rear elevation. Photograph 4: Typical Side 2 elevation. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 8 2.0 Construction Defect Allegation Response Based on Alta's review of the provided information and our site observations, Alta of- fers the following opinions as to defect allegations set forth in the Marcon Report. Each allegation is individually addressed under separate headings, with the applicable cita- tion from the Marcon Report presented in italic font, followed by Alta’s response in plain type. 2.0.1 Extrapolation of Test Data Prior to Alta’s responses to each of the individual allegations, it should be noted that Alta generally disputes the use of an extremely limited number of tested or sampled locations to extrapolate the alleged deficient conditions as likely to be present at oth- er building locations. The selected test locations are often biased because they were selected based on locations of reported, observed, or known distress or leaks. Further, the manner in which the testing is typically conducted by soliciting permission of unit owners is also biased, because owners with concerns are more likely to avail their units for destructive testing than those that do not perceive that their unit has any construc- tion-related concerns. Further, the subject buildings were constructed over a period of approximately (3)- years under different codes and using different subcontractors and sub-subcontractors and even different crewmen working for the same subcontractor. As such, the findings at one location are not extrapolatable and not inherently representative of other buildings built at other times by other subcontractors or other crews of the same sub- contractors. The test sample sizes were so limited as to constitute approximately 1-percent or less of the population size of a particular building component. These sample sizes are not sta- tistically significant by any measure and the data gathered from them are not scientifi- cally useful or appropriate to extrapolate to other untested areas of the community. While Alta may not remark as to the inadequacy of the testing for extrapolation in the narrative for each item, we generally object as to the statistical significance of the testing with regard to every alleged defect. More testing is required to establish a sta- tistically significant data pool from which a reasonable inference can be drawn re- garding the likelihood that any of the alleged defects are common throughout all of the buildings. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 9 2.1 Roofs—Asphalt Shingles 2.1.1 Drip Edge Flange Marcon Report Section 1.0101 states: At one out of four roofs tested for this condition, the required 4-inch wide strip of sealant from the eave flange to the underlayment was insufficiently placed. This allows water fo penetrate and damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R905.2.8.5) Alta Response: The roof underlayment is permitted by the FBC to be installed below the drip edge, provided mastic is applied across the lap joint between materials. This is by far the most common method of shingle roof underlayment installation in Florida. Marcon al- leges (1) location (Cut 308) where the mastic was insufficiently placed. Alta’s review of the data indicates that mastic is present and extended onto the drip flashing. (Figure 2) In areas that were unaffected by leaks through diverter flashings (which is discussed in Section 2.1.8), no damage along the drip edges was observed at any of the (5) de- structively tested locations. (Figure 3) As such, it is apparent that the mastic, as ap- plied, is providing adequate protection to the roof edge. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Photo Name: VE}mD20068.1P6 Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2889 Sunstone Dr Area: Roof Cutt 308 Roof Eave Roofs 1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles 1.0101 Missing/insufficient 4-inch roof cement over edge flashing flange: Inadequate / incomplete application of roofing cement along drip edge flashing Figure 2: Mastic over drip edge. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 10 Photo Name: VEjm020078.)PG Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM Phase / Builder: ROH Bullding: 2889 Sunstone Dr Area: Roof © Cutt 308 Roof Eave Roofs 1,01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles 1.0190 Damaged roof sheathing: Exposed roof sheathing. a>. fia Figure 3: No damage to sheathing. 2.1.2 Shingle Overhang Marcon Report Section 1.0102 states: At all roofs tested (four out of four locations), shingles do not overhang eave minimum 1/2", nor are they trimmed flush with the “D: style eave flashing, as re- quired by CertainTeed. This allows water fo penetrate along the eave and damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1) Alta Response: CertainTeed's Master Shingle Applicator Manual indicates that a 1/2” shingle over- hang be left overhanging rakes and eaves if a drip edge is being used. However, the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) calls for shingles to be installed flush with extended drip edge flashing, such as the type installed at the subject site. Flush installation of shingle starters with extended drip edges is the customary manner of roof installation throughout Florida. A shingle overhang is typically required when an L- shaped drip edge or no drip edge flashing is installed. Interestingly, Marcon's photo- graphs depict several instances of the shingles overhanging the drip edge. (Figure 4) There is no damage resultant from this alleged condition. As such, it is apparent that the shingle roof covering is performing as intended and that this particular concern is without effect on the performance of the roof covering. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 11 Photo Name: VEjmD20050JP6, Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: JM Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2889 Sunstone Dr Area: Roof Roof ave Roofs 1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles 1.0102 Shingles do not overhang edge Shingles not installed nvinimum 1/2" past edge flash of flush with "D" style eave flashing. Figure 4: Typical shingle overhang with extended drip overhang. 2.1.3 Starter Shingle Attachment Marcon Report Section 1.0105 states: At all roofs tested (four out of four), the starter strip fasteners were installed less than 3 inches from the edge of the roof, creating an unsealed opening through the eave flashing. This allows water to penetrate and damage the roof sheath- ing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1) Alta Response: The starter shingle fasteners were typically installed less than 3-inches from the leading edge of the roof. This attachment provides superior resistance to wind uplift along the eaves. A line of roofing mastic was installed between the starter and the leading edge of the first shingle course, rendering the position of the starter strip nail behind the strip without consequence regarding water penetration concerns. There has been no observed or reported diminution in the performance of the roof covering based on its attachment. No staining or decay of the OSB sheathing was un- covered below this condition at any of the destructively tested locations that were not common with diverter flashings. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 12 2.1.4 Roof Un rl ment at W. l Marcon Report Section 1.0130 states: At the one diverter location tested, the roof underlayment was not furned up the wall, creating an unsealed intersection between the wall and the roof. This allows water to penetrate and damage the roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903.1) Alta Response: The roof to wall interface at this location is protected by an “L” shaped diverter flash- ing, set in roofing mastic atop the underlayment, as is customary roofing practice. No staining or decay of the OSB sheathing or soffit framing was uncovered below the single location where this condition was reported to occur. (Figures 5 & 6) This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Photo Name: VEjm030011. JPG Date: 1/10/2020 Reviewed By: IM Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2863 Sunstone Or Area: Front Elevation Cuts 313 Roof Diverter / Floor Line Tran: ion Roofs LOI: Roofs Asphalt Shingles 1.0190 Damaged roof sheathing: Exposed roof sheathing. Figure 5: No damage to soffit sheathing or framing. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 13 Photo Name: VE}mD30033.JPG Date: 1/10/2020 Reviewed By: IM Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2863 Sunstone Br Area: Front Elevation cut: 343 Wall above Entry Roofs 1.01: Roofs Asphalt Shingles 1.0130 Underlayment not turned up at wall: Underlayment not visible behind "L" flashing along confined rake wail. Figure 6: No damage to sheathing. 2.1.5 Shingle Fastener: Marcon Report Section 1.0150 states: At all roofs tested (four out of four locations), shingles were either installed with less nails than required, or the nails were improperly spaced across the shingle, in violation of CertainTeea's installation instructions. This does not properly an- chor the shingle. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1) Alta Response: The installation instructions referred to by Marcon were not provided for Alta’s review. Accordingly, Alta obtained the Florida Product Approval (FPA) FL5444-R7 for the shin- gles installed at the subject site. The FPA was obtained through their submission of Evaluation Test Report 3532.09.05-r8, prepared by Exterior Research and Design LLC (ERD Report). The ERD Report is published to demonstrate CertainTeed shingles’ com- pliance with the requirements of the FBC. Section 6.3.3, Figure 13-4 of the ERD Report requires the installation of (4) nails per shingle in wind zones up to 150 mph (ASD) or 194 mph (LRFD) Based on this information, (4) nails are adequate for installation at the sub- ject site, where the design wind speed is 150 mph (LRFD). All shingles photographed by Marcon contained at least (4) nails and are therefore complaint with the FPA. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 14 2.1.6 Overdriven Shingle Fasteners Marcon Report Section 1.0153 states: At one roof tested (out of four locations), shingles fasteners were overdriven, in violation of CertainTeed’s installation instructions. This does not properly anchor the shingle and creates a pathway for water intrusion. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903. 1) Alta Response: The Marcon photographs indicate the discovery of (1) location (Cut 308) out of (4) lo- cations where overdriven fastener nails were identified. The single discovered location suggests this condition is anomalous rather than evidence of a systemic concern. Ad- ditional testing would be required to establish if the overdriven fasteners have any sta- tistically significant prevalence. Marcon has not performed any testing to demonstrate that the installed composite connection of the shingles to the wood roof deck is insufficient to withstand anticipat- ed wind loads. It is reasonable for some shingle fasteners to be overdriven, because of the fluctuating air pressure within the compressor used to supply air to the nail guns used to install shingles. In fact, Alta has never observed a shingle roof installation that did not have some overdriven nails. Notably, the Marcon Report does not contain any data that would indicate that overdriven fasteners were systemically present. Isolated overdriven fasteners are unlikely to affect the overall performance of the roof shingle attachment, especially in the instance where (6) nails were installed per shingle in lieu of the required (4) nails. The fastener concerns have not resulted in any observed or reported performance failure of the roof over its life to date. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. 2.1.7 Starter Shingle Marcon Report Section 1.0161 states: At one roof tested (out of four locations), starter shingles were installed without removing the lower tabs, in violation of CertainTeed's installation instructions. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903.1) Alta Response: Marcon’s photographic documentation indicates (1) location where this condition ex- ists (Cut 302). The single discovered location suggests this condition is anomalous ra- Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 15 ther than evidence of a systemic concern. The manner in which the starter shingles were installed at this single location by inver- sion of normal shingles is a common practice that provides a continuous backing for the first shingle course. Marcon’s photograph (Figure 7) depicting this condition reveals an adhesive bond line ~1-inch from the edge of the roof, which would preclude lifting of first course of the shingle tabs. As such, the installation of the inverted shingle starter course is not problematic and provides the same protection for the roof as would a typical starter course. This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the roofing subcontractor. No repair is required to address this allegation. Photo Name: VEjm010073.JPG Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM i Phase / Builder: ROH Co Building: 2952 Tanzanite Terrace Area: Front Elevation Cut: 302 Low Roof at Entry Roofs 1.01: Roofs Asphait Shingles 20161 Improper starter shingle installation: Starter course installed witheut removing lower tabs. fostalled inverted. Figure 7: Marcon Report photograph depicting the starter shingle. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 16 2.1.8 Diverter Flashing Marcon Report Section 1.1022 states: At all three roof diverters tested, the diverter fold was not sealed. This allowed water fo penetrate and has damaged roof sheathing. (2010, 2014 FRC: R903.1) Alta Response: Marcon destructively tested (3) of the (56) total roof diverters. This equates to 5% of the total roof diverters. Of the (3) test locations, only (1) revealed damage to the plywood roof deck (Cut 301). (Figure 8) Notably, no damage to the adjacent wall sheathing was uncovered at any of the (3) test locations. Alta agrees that the cause of the damage at Cut 301 was an unsealed diverter flash- Phote Name: VEimDi0007 JPG ss Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM Phase { Builder: ROH Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace Area: Front Elevation out: 201 Low Roof at Entry Roofs 1.10: Roots Flashing 4.1090 Damaged roof sheathing: Damaged sheathing below diverter. Damage extends into 2nd truss bay along fascia. Figure 8: Damage to sheathing below roof diverter. Photo Name: VEjmD 10038196 os Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: IM Pa Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace Area: Front Elevation: S ‘cut 30 Low Roof at Entry Roofs 1.10: Roofs Flashing 4.1022 Unsealed/Missing diverter at confined rake termination of "L" flashing: Unsealed diverter at termination of confined rake "L" flashing, Figure 9: Unsealed roof diverter. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 17 ing lap. (Figure 9) This area should be repaired. Alta’s site observations identified staining of the soffits below (13) other roof diverter locations, which is a likely indication of water leakage through the unsealed diverters. These locations should also be repaired by the removal and replacement of the roof covering, as necessary, to expose and replace the extent of damaged decking and fascia. Additionally, the sheathing below alll diverter flashings should be exposed and observed by removal of the underlying soffit segment. Any areas revealing staining or decay should be addressed by removal and replacement of the roof coverings and damaged wood elements, as necessary. This investigation has not been completed by Marcon, and therefore the extent of damage caused by the diverter flashing laps cannot be discerned. Because Marcon only discovered damage at only (1) or 33- percent of the locations that they tested, the initial sampling does not suggest a sys- temic concern. Regardless of the sheathing condition, all diverter flashing laps should be sealed. This allegation is associated with the work of the roofing subcontractor. 2.2 Fenestrations 2.2.1 ill Dam T t Marcon Report Section 2.0101 states: A sill dam test using the AAMA 511 protocol produced product leaks at one out of four windows tested in wood walls for this condition. A sill dam test using the AAMA 511 protocol produced product leaks at one out of one window tested in a masonry wall for this condition. (2010, 2014 FRC: R703.1) Alta Response: Alta was not provided notice of, and therefore did not attend, Marcon's destructive and water testing. Consequently, we were not able to view the testing or document the contemporaneous conditions that would have otherwise allowed us to validate the test procedures, independently assess the source of the reported leaks, and tacitly evaluate the alleged staining/damage to the building components. A total of (5) out of (473) total windows were tested, representing approximately 1.1% of the population. Testing 1.1-percent of the window population does not provide sta- tistically significant information that would be useful for extrapolation and subsequent conclusions anticipating similar performance of the population of windows throughout the community. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 18 Marcon reported “leaks” during the sill dam tests at (2) of the (5) tested windows. One leak was reported at a second floor window and one leak was reported at a first floor window. In both instances, the leaks amounted to drips of water that did not even wet the full width of the hydrion paper used to demonstrate the leak after 4 to 9-minutes (Figure 10) Such water entry is not indicative of leaks likely to result in damaging water contact to the wood building structure during typical storm events. The wood sheathing and drywall exposed below the second floor reported “leak” lo- cation at Cut 201 did not reveal indications of prior moisture contact or damage to the interior finishes, the wood wall framing, or the OSB wall sheathing below the win- dow opening. (Figure 11) Staining was present on the paper-facing of the radiant barrier below the tested first floor window sill. (Figure 12) However, as mentioned above, water entry through the window frame was de minimis. The more likely source of water leakage at this location is the unsealed joint between the window sill and the stucco clad CMU sill. (Figure 13) This alleged deficiency arises from the work of the window installation subcontractor and/or the window manufacturer. No repair is required to address this allegation. Photo Name: VEmiD10055.1P6 Date: 1/8/2920 Reviewed By: Mi Phase / Suilder: ROH Building: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace ie Area: Rear Elevation cut: 201 Rear Wail atnr Fenestrations 2.01: Fenestrations Window a 2.0161 Window product fails ANMA 511 dam test: AAMA siif dam test: 0920 - 0930. Dams filled with 7/16" and 9/16” of water, Result: FAIL, 4-min leak at right sill / jamb frame corner. Figure 10: Bead of water at sill test dam. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 19 Photo Name: VErniD10040JPG Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi Phase / Builder: ROH Bullding: 2930 Tanzanite Terrace Area: Rear Elevation Cut: 201 3 = Rear Wall Fenestrations Ol: Fenestrations Window. 2.0192 Damage to wall components (drywall, insulation, ete.): Separation at jamb and at window to sill stoole. Staining of wall OSB under mullion. Figure 11: Lack of damage below location of sill dam “leak”. Photo Name: VEmID10103.1PG Date: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi Phase / Builder: ROH om ss Building: 2934 Tanzanite Terrace ee | ne Brea: Front Elevation — 202 Front Wall Fenestrations .O1; Fenestrations Window 2.0191 Damage to wall framing: Staining and bio-organinc growth on window bucks and on backside of insulation. Figure 12: Marcon Report image depicting organic growth on radiant barrier at first floor window. Photo Name: VEmiD10154.19G Bete: 1/8/2020 Reviewed By: Mi Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2934 Tanzanite Terrace Area: Front Elevation Cut: 203 = Front Wall Walls a 3.02: Walls Stucco Over Concrete Block 3.0201 Lack of isolation/improper application of primary sealant around window: Lack of isolation between the window frame and the stucco prevents the proper application of primary sealant Figure 13: Marcon Report image depicting void between window and stucco sill. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 20 2.2.2 Window Fails AAMA 501.2 Spray Test Marcon Report Section 2.0102 states: Spray test using an AAMA 501.2 wand produced installation leaks at three out of four windows tested in wood walls for this condition. Spray test using an AAMA 501.2 wand produced installation leaks at one out of one window tested in a masonry wall for this condition. (2010, 2014 FRC: R703. 1) Alta Response: A total of (5) of the (473) windows were “spray” tested. The tested windows represent approximately 1.1% of the population. The spray tested windows are the same as those that were sill dam tested. As previously mentioned, testing 1.1-percent of the window population does not provide statistically significant information that would be useful for extrapolation and subsequent conclusions anticipating similar performance of the population of windows throughout the community. As previously mentioned, Alta was not present during the testing conducted, thus limit- ing our ability to discern the viability and results of the testing. Alta objects to the water testing methodology conducted by Marcon using an AAMA 501.2 spray nozzle to test an operable window. AAMA 501.2—Quality Assurance and Diagnostic Water Leakage Field Check of Installed Storefronts, Curtain Walls, and Sloped Glazing Systems prescribes a test procedure and equipment for the testing of fixed glass fenestrations. The scope and purpose section of AAMA 501.2 states: (Underlining added by Alta for emphasis.) NOTE: This field check method is not appropriate for testing of operable compo- nents such as operable windows 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. Based on the foregoing, the test method employed by Marcon is not appropriately used for testing operable windows. The reason for AAMA's precaution is that the con- centrated water pressure produced by the AAMA nozzle is typically much greater than can be resisted by the weather-siripped joints between the operable sash and the fixed window frame, which greatly exceeds the capacity of the window and therefore often results in test-induced water entry. Water entry through operable win- dow frames during an AAMA 501.2 test may not occur during standardized pressure testing intended for this purpose, as specifically governed by AAMA 502—Voluntary Specification of Field Testing of Window sand Sliding Glass Doors, which uses a grid of low pressure misting spray nozzles to introduce water to the surface of the window Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 21 specimen and a vacuum chamber to precisely regulate the differential test pressure across the window frame. Notably, the condition of the wood sheathing and drywall exposed below the window tests conducted at second floor windows did not reveal indications of prior moisture contact or damage to the interior finishes, wood wall framing, or OSB wall sheathing below the window openings. (Figures 14-17) The only stain identified by Marcon on the wood framed walls below the tested win- dows was a light stain on the sill plate, approximately 2-feet below the window, with no accompanying stain or decay trail from the window opening above. (Figure 14) As such, this stain does not appear to be associated with a window leak. The stain is com- mon with the interior floor surface, suggesting the possibility that it was wetted by unit occupants or during construction, prior to dry-in. The lack of staining on the window sill and framing below the other windows tested in- dicates that prior leaks during natural events have not occurred. Based on the above, the testing completed by Marcon is not valid for drawing conclu- sions regarding the performance of the windows or their flashings throughout the com- munity. No evidence was presented that the fenestrations are defective and require removal and replacement. This alleged deficiency arises from the owner's lack of maintenance, the painter, and the window manufacturer, supplier, and installer. No repair is required to address this allegation. Photo Name: VEmiD20025.°¢ Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: M4! Phase / Builder: ROH Building: 2927 Sunstone Or avea: Rear Elevation cut 206 Rear wall Fenestrations: 2.01: fenestrations window 2.0151 Damage to wall framing: Damaged silf plate under weindowe, Figure 14: Marcon Report photograph depicting a stain on the sill plate below a window. Evaluation Report September 10, 2021 Villas at Emerald Lake v. Royal Oaks Homes Page 22 Photo Name: VEmIN20023.1°G Date: 1/9/2020 Reviewed By: Mi # Phase / Builder: ROH