-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Sheet rock on exterior wall,, Normal??
- Thread starter cda
- Start date
A new lawsuit that raises fresh questions has been filed in connection with the fatal fire late last year at the Barclay Friends senior citizens’ facility in West Chester, alleging that the facility’s builder deviated from plans by failing to install fire-resistant material — which would have slowed the fast-moving blaze — in the exterior walls.
In the suit, filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the estate of Thomas Parker, 92, and Delores Parker, 89, two of the four elderly residents who died in the blaze, states that the couple died “terrifying, gruesome, agonizing, and lonely deaths.”
The Parker estate’s lawyers, James McEldrew, Daniel Purtell, and Ian Bryson, paint the couple as facing an especially desperate situation during the fire. The suit says both suffered from dementia and, although capable of walking, were accustomed to using an elevator to get downstairs from their second-story unit. When the fire broke out, the elevator automatically stopped running in the two-story building. The Parkers, parents of three daughters, died in their room.
The fast-moving fire began on the evening of Nov. 16 in the rear of the personal-care section of the seven-wing complex, and was likely caused by a tossed cigarette, officials have said. The five-alarm blaze gutted the 41-resident section. The six other wings, far less damaged, were home to some 100 residents receiving nursing care. Also killed in the fire were Theresa Malloy, 85, and Mildred E. Gadde, 93.
The suit, filed Tuesday, also blames the fire on an “unenforced nonsmoking policy,” an “improperly constructed” outside wall that permitted the fire “to breach the building’s interior,” a “woefully inadequate” sprinkler network that had been erroneously turned off before the blaze, a “poor evacuation plan,” and a lack of water available to firefighters.
A spokesman for Barclay Friends did not return a telephone call seeking comment Friday.
When the facility was planned, the suit claims, architectural drawings called for half-inch thick gypsum board to be installed under exterior vinyl siding. Gypsum, a soft fire-resistant mineral used in construction, would have stopped or slowed the spread of the fire from outside the structure to the inside.
But post-fire inspection, according to the suit, showed that the board was never installed. The suit faulted Barclay Friends and its architects for not ensuring that the gypsum board had been installed.
The suit, filed Tuesday, also blames the fire on an “unenforced nonsmoking policy,” an “improperly constructed” outside wall that permitted the fire “to breach the building’s interior,” a “woefully inadequate” sprinkler network that had been erroneously turned off before the blaze, a “poor evacuation plan,” and a lack of water available to firefighters.
A spokesman for Barclay Friends did not return a telephone call seeking comment Friday.
In the suit, filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the estate of Thomas Parker, 92, and Delores Parker, 89, two of the four elderly residents who died in the blaze, states that the couple died “terrifying, gruesome, agonizing, and lonely deaths.”
The Parker estate’s lawyers, James McEldrew, Daniel Purtell, and Ian Bryson, paint the couple as facing an especially desperate situation during the fire. The suit says both suffered from dementia and, although capable of walking, were accustomed to using an elevator to get downstairs from their second-story unit. When the fire broke out, the elevator automatically stopped running in the two-story building. The Parkers, parents of three daughters, died in their room.
The fast-moving fire began on the evening of Nov. 16 in the rear of the personal-care section of the seven-wing complex, and was likely caused by a tossed cigarette, officials have said. The five-alarm blaze gutted the 41-resident section. The six other wings, far less damaged, were home to some 100 residents receiving nursing care. Also killed in the fire were Theresa Malloy, 85, and Mildred E. Gadde, 93.
The suit, filed Tuesday, also blames the fire on an “unenforced nonsmoking policy,” an “improperly constructed” outside wall that permitted the fire “to breach the building’s interior,” a “woefully inadequate” sprinkler network that had been erroneously turned off before the blaze, a “poor evacuation plan,” and a lack of water available to firefighters.
A spokesman for Barclay Friends did not return a telephone call seeking comment Friday.
When the facility was planned, the suit claims, architectural drawings called for half-inch thick gypsum board to be installed under exterior vinyl siding. Gypsum, a soft fire-resistant mineral used in construction, would have stopped or slowed the spread of the fire from outside the structure to the inside.
But post-fire inspection, according to the suit, showed that the board was never installed. The suit faulted Barclay Friends and its architects for not ensuring that the gypsum board had been installed.
The suit, filed Tuesday, also blames the fire on an “unenforced nonsmoking policy,” an “improperly constructed” outside wall that permitted the fire “to breach the building’s interior,” a “woefully inadequate” sprinkler network that had been erroneously turned off before the blaze, a “poor evacuation plan,” and a lack of water available to firefighters.
A spokesman for Barclay Friends did not return a telephone call seeking comment Friday.
In December, the Malloy estate filed the first suit against Barclay Friends and others in the fire. In rebuttal pleadings, Barclay Friends has argued, among other defenses, that the cases should be resolved via binding arbitration and removed from the courts. Barclay has said that Malloy’s son, upon his mother’s admission, had signed the home’s standard form agreeing that future disputes would be solved by arbitrators.
As lawyers for the families of those killed have previously alleged, the new suit also claims that the valve controlling the flow of water to the home’s extensive sprinkler system was in the “off” position at the time of the blaze. To make matters worse, the suit states, the alarm system designed to alert staff when water was shut off was providing a false reading — wrongly signaling that the water was flowing and available.
That issue aside, the suit contends the builders of the facility in 1997 adopted the wrong construction standard for the personal-care wing, especially given that many of its residents suffered from dementia. Adoption of a more relaxed standard, it says, was a mistake that meant too few sprinklers were installed.
And as the Inquirer and Daily News have previously reported, the design firm for the sprinkler system put down widely different figures in different documents for incoming water available for the sprinkler network. The lawsuit cites this discrepancy in the plans, among others. Donald Vess, the designer of the system, acknowledged to a reporter that his plans included mistakes but said the errors were “typos” of little consequence, though others experts raised concerns. The company that hired Vess to do the design and the engineer that approved his sketches are named as defendants in the new suit, along with Barclay Friends’ parent company, Kendal Corp.; the private water company Aqua; and Johnson Controls, the firm that conducted periodic tests of the sprinklers.
In naming Aqua, the suit notes that responding firefighters had complained of a lack of water during the blaze and that only weeks before the fire Aqua had announced a plan to replace the water main outside the facility, in part to “improve firefighting capabilities.” Firefighters had to run one line 400 yards from an area hospital to fight the deadly blaze. Aqua has said that water issues had no effect on efforts to stop the fire.
As lawyers for the families of those killed have previously alleged, the new suit also claims that the valve controlling the flow of water to the home’s extensive sprinkler system was in the “off” position at the time of the blaze. To make matters worse, the suit states, the alarm system designed to alert staff when water was shut off was providing a false reading — wrongly signaling that the water was flowing and available.
That issue aside, the suit contends the builders of the facility in 1997 adopted the wrong construction standard for the personal-care wing, especially given that many of its residents suffered from dementia. Adoption of a more relaxed standard, it says, was a mistake that meant too few sprinklers were installed.
And as the Inquirer and Daily News have previously reported, the design firm for the sprinkler system put down widely different figures in different documents for incoming water available for the sprinkler network. The lawsuit cites this discrepancy in the plans, among others. Donald Vess, the designer of the system, acknowledged to a reporter that his plans included mistakes but said the errors were “typos” of little consequence, though others experts raised concerns. The company that hired Vess to do the design and the engineer that approved his sketches are named as defendants in the new suit, along with Barclay Friends’ parent company, Kendal Corp.; the private water company Aqua; and Johnson Controls, the firm that conducted periodic tests of the sprinklers.
In naming Aqua, the suit notes that responding firefighters had complained of a lack of water during the blaze and that only weeks before the fire Aqua had announced a plan to replace the water main outside the facility, in part to “improve firefighting capabilities.” Firefighters had to run one line 400 yards from an area hospital to fight the deadly blaze. Aqua has said that water issues had no effect on efforts to stop the fire.
Doesn’t look good for the inspector. It’s a big project to miss a layer of gypsum. Vinyl siding is not a proper cladding if your looking to slow a fire.
I have seen but a few buildings that have drywall on the exterior side. I wonder if moisture gets to It when it’s placed under vinyl siding.
I have seen but a few buildings that have drywall on the exterior side. I wonder if moisture gets to It when it’s placed under vinyl siding.
conarb
REGISTERED
Tiger:
Every city here is almost demanding it, they use that yellow DensGlass, I've fought it on stucco buildings on the theory that the stucco or stone is fireproof, it seems that they want it just as policy, so far I've avoided it, but were I to build a redwood or cedar building I would have to use it.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
It is usually used to prevent fire spread, but the walls are usually rated from the inside. At least in our code.
It sounds like the fire started outside and moved in, which our code does not deal with, unless it's between two buildings.
The other questions is if the exterior gypsum was required or not.
It sounds like the fire started outside and moved in, which our code does not deal with, unless it's between two buildings.
The other questions is if the exterior gypsum was required or not.
conarb
REGISTERED
T Murray:
Here in California that is what we deal with, wildfires are our biggest problem, as much as I am against fire sprinklers I do everything to prevent homes from catching fire from wildfires, I use 4 coat stucco, all fire dampened vents, and as little wood as possible on the exterior, on my last home the only wood I had was the front door and the garage doors, I had them built 2¼" thick to delay burn-through.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
PA didn't required inspections and permits per IBC until 2004. Building was built in 1997. Still don't have the IFC that requires periodically fire sprinkler inspections (unless local adoption of the IFC)
I thinking feds or state should have done some type of inspections over the years and maybe during construction
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Conard you would love it here. The code enforcement is lacking a great deal in some areas. Most inspectors work for 3rd party companies. A lot of the third party companies compete against each other for who is the leese strict. A lot of local governments in rural areas (Trump Country) don't want anything to do with enforcing the codes and don't care about things like getting sprinklers inspected periodically. Only the more urban areas are enforce the codes the way they are suppose to do.
conarb
REGISTERED
Rick:
Yeah I know, Pennsylvanians don't follow any rules, 62 years ago I married a Philadelphian, she promised to "Love, Honor, and Obey" me but just laughs at me if I bring it up, I can't imagine her reaction to obeying a building code.
fatboy
Administrator
There are four complaints about this thread turning political.
Just reporting, but how about reigning it back to replies that are of substance to the OP?
Just reporting, but how about reigning it back to replies that are of substance to the OP?
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Sorry folks. Just Conarb and I poking fun at each other.
I guess the larger question is, is it within the scope of the IBC to protect the building from fire outside the building. The base building code here does not, bu as Conarb pointed out, some areas have amended to increase protection for areas with wildfires.
I guess the larger question is, is it within the scope of the IBC to protect the building from fire outside the building. The base building code here does not, bu as Conarb pointed out, some areas have amended to increase protection for areas with wildfires.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Odds are it lit the vinyl siding on fire, up into the soffit vents into the truss roof attic with a 13 R they wouldn't need any suppression or detection, and the roof collapses and no one gets out....ALL PERFECTLY CODE COMPLIANT TODAY.....For better or worse....
jar546
CBO
This thread has been policed by me. Some posts deleted and some edited. All parties involved were told why.
Paul Sweet
SAWHORSE
Steveray, we have had several apartment fires around Richmond that happened the way you said. Fortunately nobody got killed in them. I submitted a code amendment to require sprinklers in the attic, but it got turned down because the committee considered attic sprinklers as property protection rather than for life safety.
conarb
REGISTERED
Paul:
Interesting that the committees are still using "life safety" as the minimum standard for codes, seems to me that we have all kinds of codes today that have nothing to do with "life safety", Green codes, Energy codes, Disability codes, all examples of codes that have nothing to do with 'life safety".
A friend of mine (not affiliated with any political party) is busy removing EIFS and DensGlass around windows at a church. Some are eighty feet high. Water got to the DensGlass and eroded the gypsum. The plan is to replace the DensGlass with plywood and stucco over that.