When Hockey Pucks Get Buried Halfway in New Retirement Home Walls

What happens when an architect specifies an approved lightweight wall system for a retirement home, only to watch it crumble under repeated slap-shots and Canadian winters within a year?

In this episode you’ll discover how a promising “new and improved” product turned a proud building into a shabby hockey puck target, and what every architect can learn about balancing innovation with hard-won caution.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

• Leave a Review     
• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Access our Risk Education Library
• Speak with a Risk Services Expert if you’re an Ontario architect seeking guidance for a risk management issue.

Thank you for listening.

Transcript

In this story, an Architect chooses an approved cladding for a retirement home, but within a year of installation the material proves unsuitable. There is product liability involved, as well as the replacement cost of several hockey pucks. We call this story … “The Puck Stops Here.”

The Architects Gerald Mills & Associates had designed and built a two-storey retirement home for Driftwood Inc., on the outskirts of an eastern Ontario city. They had specified a construction system consisting of lightweight synthetic blocks that closely resembled Rice Krispie squares. The blocks were laid “dry”, with no mortar between them, and held together by a surface coating of acrylic stucco, over a nylon mesh on both the interior and exterior faces.

The manufacturers advertised this wall system as load-bearing, and with the addition of “spreaders,” able to take the point loads exerted by beams and trusses. The system was fully approved by the authorities having jurisdiction… Also, they were inexpensive.

The Owners’ plea was that the building, which had been completed less than a year ago, was rapidly descending into decrepitude. Stepped cracks were evident inside and out; water stains were disfiguring both surfaces; and overall, the stucco had assumed the uneven look of crude, badly-maintained adobe.

Adding to the building’s shabby appearance, local boys had discovered that they could test their hockey skills by whacking pucks and stones from an adjacent playground into the stucco walls. A particularly energetic slapshot could bury a puck more than halfway into the wall. 

Some of the residents were incensed by this ingenious vandalism and vigorously removed the objects by hacking at them (that is the objects, not the kids) with walking sticks, which only made the damage worse.

The Owners, out of concern for the safety of the residents and their own investment, demanded remedies.

The Pro-Demnity Claims professional took the step of visiting the building to assess the conditions in-person. We harboured no illusion: remedial work was definitely required.

In their defence, thxe Architects claimed that the problems were the result of either poor workmanship or product failure.

The workmanship was obviously sub-par. The failure to reinforce joints to spread the point loads had resulted in stepped cracking, through the wall. Both faces of the wall, with some blocks clearly protruding and others recessed, undulated like wind-blown snow. The acrylic stucco coating varied in thickness from paper-thin and transparent to more than a centimetre thick. 

And since the product had been officially approved, problems could not possibly have derived from the Architects’ professional service.

The Architects confessed to Pro-Demnity that they had recognized early on that the materials were not very good, and regretted being swayed by the product salesperson. They vowed they would never use these products again.

But this presented a problem. If the Architects were asked about this in a straightforward question during cross-examination, this honest opinion would severely weaken the Defence. Our best chance at recovery would be to rely on third party claims, in other words… share the guilt.

The Engineers had accepted the system with no questions asked. Joists had been placed with direct bearing on the KrispyBloks, but without ensuring that the loads were properly carried. They had visited the site, and had “signed off” on the structure.

The Engineer’s insurer was appropriately concerned, and agreed to follow Pro-Demnity’s lead, accepting shared liability, if any existed.

The General Contractor was a straightforward, honest and industrious sort, who had done his very best. At a meeting with the potential Defendants, their respective insurers, and their lawyers, he told his story, explaining the problems he had encountered.

The blocks, he said, were supposed to be 30 cm. thick, but the dimensions varied a centimetre plus or minus. This randomness meant that any attempt to keep both exterior and interior faces flat would meet with certain failure. So the mason devised a solution: by staggering the blocks very slightly the wall thickness could averaged out, creating two slightly irregular surfaces, instead of one that was wildly uneven. The acrylic stucco and mesh applied to these surfaces was supposed to be 3 mm. thick, consistently, but to minimize the unevenness, the contractor varied the thickness of the stucco. This strategy, he admitted, had failed.

In his view, the stepped cracking had been caused by the drying and subsequent shrinking of the blocks. The spreaders had been placed in the joints, as intended, but, he noted, they consisted of only a few horizontal strips of nylon mesh. Maybe the design was inadequate. How could he know? 

What he did know was that he didn’t want a lawsuit. He was prepared to contribute a modest sum, or undertake remedial work, if he were told what to do… and if the others pitched in.

The Product Manufacturer was not in good shape. Their KrispyBlok business had been suspended and the owners were now living abroad. They were represented by their lawyer, who was uncertain whether she should even be there. She was willing to cooperate as far as she could, but since her duty was to defend her client, she didn’t admit to any product shortcomings. It was clear that we would get little comfort or contribution from the Manufacturer.

The settlement negotiations were civilized. The Owners’ lawyer was patient, and surprisingly content to play a mediation role, rather than the more usual role of the virtuous avenger.

The Defendants agreed to hire a third-party consulting engineer to report on the situation and suggest remedies. The Owners agreed to wait.

The engineer’s report served its purpose well. The structural problem was serious, but not catastrophic. Provided that the Owners were not hoping for a perfectly flat wall, and were prepared to accept some surface imperfections, structure could be inserted, and the walls would be repaired.

Various payment formulas were proposed, each Defendant claiming that, since they were entirely blameless, their contribution should be only a token amount. We also needed to work out formulas: one if the manufacturer were insolvent, and another if there proved to be some other viable entity to claim against.

The remedial work began. The Architects preparedcontract documents, the contractor agreed to do it at cost. The Owners agreed to accept the third party consultant as the certifier of the work.

In the end, all parties contributed. The Manufacturer revived a little and contributed a modest sum. The Owners reduced their claim to the cost of the work, forgiving quite legitimate consequential losses, such as loss of revenue for suites that could not be occupied.

The remedial work was completed and the Architects fully released from any further claims.

We were lucky to be dealing with an owner who had a problem solver for a lawyer, rather than a sabre-toothed tiger. By working things out, rather than engaging in the more usual vigorous confrontational defence, all parties benefitted. A refreshing atmosphere of reasonableness pervaded the controversy, and by avoiding the litigation process, everyone saved money.

In this story, the problems can be attributed to one conspicuous cause: untried products should be used with caution, with the risks understood by all involved. But there are several important lessons to be learned.

Lesson No. 1: “New and Improved” products appear all the time, and architects are encouraged to keep abreast of these technological advances. But in using new products, be reasonably certain that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Lesson No. 2: Always think twice before believing the promises of product literature and salespeople. When using a product that is new to you, do your homework. Ask many questions, document responses and use common sense, along with a healthy degree of skepticism. Share the finding with your clients so they understand the potential risks as well.

Lesson No. 3: Generally speaking, some building materials and methods are better suited to some climates than to others. For example, some adobe structures in the warm and arid American southwest are the oldest continuously occupied buildings in North America. For adobe to work in cold, wet climates or in Canadian conditions, special measures may be required, along with careful , ongoing maintenance.

Lesson No. 4: Approvals by various authorities – CMHC, Underwriters Labels, Fire Marshall, etc. – are necessary and comforting, but if the product lacks a proven track record in your region, it may not perform as expected. Quoting the authorities seems like a good defence, but it may not exonerate you. 

Lesson No. 5: Product liability is an area of law that continues to receive a lot attention. But such liability is meaningless if not backed by resources. When dealing with a new product, always be aware that the relative impermanence of the company that produced it may have a bearing on any future legal action. If the KrispyBlok manufacturer had maintained a viable business, we would have approached this case very differently.

Lesson No. 6: ProDemnity Insurance Company does not endorse or pre-approve any products, processes or materials. Be wary of public claims of products or materials being pre-approve for use by ProDemnity. Always do your own due diligence and document it. As an architect, any final decision regarding the suitability of a product or process, and whether the requirements of your ProDemnity policy are being met, is yours alone to make.

Last, and not least, lesson No. 7: The drive for greater sustainability in design, as well as the durability and resiliency of the built environment will continue to challenge the architectural profession. And while ProDemnity support architects to take the risks necessary to design a better world, we do so by championing your wise and efficient management of risk. Consider potential risks well in advance and discuss them candidly with the owners and other parties involved, then budget accordingly for those known and unknown risks.