Opinion ID: 2640748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Construction Events

Text: Approximately four years after the completion of the Project, residents of Newtown Meadows again reported problems involving cracks in their respective units, this time involving buildings other than Building 3. On April 18, 1992, Alvin Tamaribuchi, one of the owners of unit 8A1 in Building 8, sent a letter to Ronald Kobashigawa of Ind-Comm Management, who at all times relevant herein was the managing agent for Newtown Meadows, indicating that his unit was experiencing numerous cracks. In his letter, Tamaribuchi stated that Steve Mosley, the resident manager, inspected the cracks in Tamaribuchi's unit on April 17, 1992. Mosley suggested [to Tamaribuchi] that nothing be done for a few days or weeks when the cracks be observed [sic] periodically. Mosley also informed Tamaribuchi that [u]nit 6 had problems with settling about four months ago. Subsequently, Kobashigawa, at the request of the AOAO's board of directors, contacted Venture 15 for assistance in investigating, diagnosing and correcting the problem[, i.e., the cracks in Tamaribuchi's unit.] Venture 15 apparently turned to Geolabs and Shigemura Inc. to investigate the cracks in Tamaribuchi's unit. On May 13, 1992, Dayton Fraim (a representative of Geolabs), Lau (the vice-president of Shigemura Inc.), Kobashigawa, Mosley, and Tamaribuchi attended a site inspection to investigate the cracks in Tamaribuchi's unit. During the site inspection, the units above and to the right [of unit 8A] were also checked as well as one particular unit at Building 6. The next day, Lau, on behalf of Shigemura Inc., sent a letter to Kobashigawa, reporting his findings and recommendations. Lau stated in pertinent part that: The exterior lanai slab of one unit on the [m]akai end of the building had a hairline crack down the middle. A straight edge was laid across the crack and found to see-saw over the crack. This is an indication that the crack is a flexural crack caused by heaving of the slab and might be an indication that the subgrade soil is slightly expansive. Another indication of upheaval was at the juncture where the lanai slab abuts the main building slab. The top of the lanai concrete slab was found to be higher than the joint material against the building. The grading and swales on the [m]auka end of the building was almost non-existent. In fact, the [o]wner and [r]esident [m]anager said that ponding of the water always occurred at that corner. Similarly, at the unit at Building 6 where damage was the worst, the grading away from the lanai was poor. Based on the observations noted, we suspect that most, if not all, of the cracks may be attributed to settlement of the foundations caused by water infiltration into the subgrade . . . . Our recommendations are to, first, correct the poor drainage conditions and then to simply patch the cracks with matching drywall finishing material. If patching is done without first correcting the source of the problem (ponding of water), then subsequent damage can still occur. If the drainage is corrected, then settlement problems should subside and patching can be done. In some instances, additional future patching may be necessary if the rate of subsidence is very slow and a little more settlement occurs. . . . At this time, we would like to re-assure you that these cracks do not appear to indicate any catastrophic structural failures or any impending collapse problems. They simply reflect a foundation settlement problem caused by water intrusion into the subgrade beneath the footings resulting from excessive water ponding problems . . . . (Emphases added.) On May 29, 1992, Bob Wong, the president of Geolabs, sent a field report to Kobashigawa, setting forth Geolabs' opinions and recommendations. Wong stated in relevant part that: Based on our observations, it appears that the cracking is the result of at least two (2) causes. The exterior cracks in the lanai slabs appear to be the result of heaving caused by swelling of moderately expansive soils. The interior cracks appear to be the result of minor amounts of foundation settlements. It is our opinion that the poor drainage has caused water to infiltrate under the building. In the very lightly loaded lanai slab areas, this has resulted in a slight heaving[,] causing cracking of the slab. The infiltration has most likely caused a softening of the subgrade soils. Under the heavier foundation loads, this has resulted in minor settlement[,] causing cracking of the rigid drywall materials. Therefore, we recommend the following actions: 1. The exterior areas should be regraded to provide drainage away from the building. 2. Irrigation of the yard areas should be reduced to limit saturation of the soils. 3. After the regrading and reduction of the irrigation, the cracks should be repaired. 4. After the repair of the cracks, they should be monitored on a bi-weekly basis for any future movements. If the cracks reopen, additional exploration may be required. (Emphases added.) During the 1992 investigation, Kobashigawa apparently was never informed of the Grouting Report prepared by Geolabs regarding the remedial grouting work under Building 3 at Newtown Meadows. According to Kobashigawa, the recommendation to correct the poor drainage around the building had been accomplished at some point. Approximately a year later, on May 30, 1993, Tamaribuchi sent a second letter to Kobashigawa, indicating that the crack on the wall in the master bedroom between the sliding door and window has continued to a point about a foot from the floor[] despite the efforts to reroute the water flow . . . done some months ago. By December 1993, Kobashigawa received complaints from other residents about cracks and hard-to-open doors and sliding glass doors in units located in Buildings 5, 6, and 7. Consequently, on December 21, 1993, Kobashigawa requested Geolabs and Shigemura Inc. to conduct another site inspection. [6] On January 28, 1994, Clarice Lai, the owner of unit 6A2, sent a letter to Kobashigawa, stating in pertinent part that: With respect to ground settlement problems being reported by other owners in . . . Newtown Meadows . . . as recorded in the [AOAO] minutes, I would like to bring to your attention that my unit also contains hairline cracks by the master bedroom windows. I have yet to notice, in the past few months, any other evidence of settlement in other areas of the unit. As in other wood structure units, creeking [sic] is often heard when there is movement in my unit or in other adjacent units. While it is very difficult to determine the exact location of the source, this may also be a result of ground settlement. On January 31, 1994, Kobashigawa wrote a letter to Tamaribuchi, stating that: After much discussion, the Board [of Directors of Newtown Meadows] decided that[,] although the cracks may have been cause [sic] by ground movement which is beyond their control, the [AOAO] cannot be responsible for repair to apartment interiors but only to the common elements. We have spoken to the structural engineer[, presumably Shigemura Inc.,] about the cracks and they recommended that after the dirt is regraded around the building we need to wait about a year for the ground under the building to dry and resettle then patch the cracks and again wait and see if the problem persists. The ground around the building was regraded twice, the most recent time was in September 1993. (Emphases added.) On January 12, 1995, Rodney Yanai, the owner of unit 6C1 and a member of the AOAO's board of directors, sent a letter to Kobashigawa, stating in relevant part that: As you know[,] my wife and I have been living in Newtown Meadows since 1987. We have been having a constant problem with major cracks in the walls and not being able to close doors for years. Though we have repaired all of the problems, most of the same problem, and more have returned. I believe that there is some ponding, by unit[s] A and B [of] [B]uilding 6, because when a tree fell down, near unit A, there was sitting water deep inside the hole that the tree made, and it had not rained for at least 3 days. A site inspection, attended by Lau, Honma, Teddy Kwock (on behalf of Geolabs), Kobashigawa, and various affected homeowners of Buildings 6, was conducted on April 21, 1995. In May 1995, Geolabs informed Honma that it was highly likely that a leakage of the sewer system existed in the vicinity of Buildings 5 and 6. Consequently, Geolabs recommended that the existing sewer system be inspected for leakage and [that] any repair work be performed prior to proceeding with any remedial actions in resolving the distresses observed in Building 6. On June 9, 1995, Yanai sent a letter to the other members of the AOAO's board of directors, Kobashigawa, and Mosley, stating that it has become necessary to take a more assertive posture in the resolution to the problems of the cracks in the walls. The AOAO ultimately hired a contractor, American Leak Detection, to inspect the pertinent sewer lines; American Leak Detection apparently observed on September 25, 1995 that no breaks or leaks were detected at this time. According to Kobashigawa, Venture 15 stopped responding to the [AOAO's] requests for assistance, and the [AOAO's] [b]oard [of directors] authorized the hiring [of] its own expert to investigate the problem[] sometime in 1996. Subsequently, Kobashigawa sought proposals from several independent experts, seeking a second opinion in resolving the soil and/or ground water problem. Weidig Geoanalysts (Weidig) submitted a proposal to Kobashigawa on January 20, 1997, and the AOAO ultimately retained Weidig sometime thereafter. In its April 15, 1997 report for Building 6, Weidig concluded that [t]he observed foundation displacements and related symptoms of structural distress are due to a combination of settlement and local bearing failure caused by improper compaction of the fill material and failure to intercept the subsurface water before it reaches the fill [] and recommended that the building foundations be underpinned[.] (Emphases added.) According to Kobashigawa, Weidig's April 15, 1997 report [wa]s the first report by an expert that [he] had seen up to that time that attributed the problems at [B]uildings 6 and 8 to negligence on the part of any of the defendants. At some point, the AOAO also retained Stewart Engineering, Inc. (Stewart), which conducted, among other things, a slab elevation and distress survey for several units located in Buildings 6 and 8. In its January 4, 2000 report, Stewart concluded that most of the cracked dry wall, distorted door frames, [and] cracked slabs appear[] to be the result of differential settlement of the deep fills underlying the buildings, but some of the distress is probably related to expansive soil activity beneath the slabs. Groundwater is a contributory problem at Building 6. Stewart also concluded that [t]he distress observed is consistent with settlement of poorly compacted fill, which was reported in the Weidig report[] and by some Geolabs data. (Emphasis added.) Stewart further concluded that: The foundations and slabs-on-grade were not designed appropriately for the ground conditions. The construction plans show a 4-inch thick slab with 6×6-10×10 welded wire fabric at the mid-point as the only reinforcement. Our observation of the large crack in [u]nit 8B1 indicated a 4-inch slab, possibly with wire fabric at the bottom of the slab. . . . Such a slab foundation system is inadequate to resist either expansive soil activity or distress from differential soil settlement. . . . The slab foundation system does not appear to conform to present [Uniform Building Code (UBC)] design requirements.