UPDATE: This legal matter has been settled among the parties involved.
Original Article
Saying that framing, plumbing and heating problems emerged within months of closing on a newly constructed house on Ponus Ridge, the homeowners have filed a lawsuit against a builder and subcontractors that cites structural deficiencies, building code violations and deviations from original design plans.
429 Ponus Ridge. Credit: Michael Dinan
Sean and Kelly McDevitt purchased their 5,558-square-foot Colonial at 429 Ponus Ridge for $2 million in July 2012, weeks after the New Canaan Building Department issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the home.
Within one year, a burst pipe caused extensive damage to the home and the McDevitts set about making repairs, according to the civil lawsuit, filed March 11.
While replacing water-damaged floors and cabinets, the McDevitts last spring “discovered a hump in the office flooring, and unlevel flooring in the office and kitchen including variances in the flooring greater than would be expected in new home construction.”
The complaint cites a state law designed to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive trade practices, saying the builder permitted workmanship that it “knew or should have known created defects on the premises.”
“[The builder] deliberately ‘cut corners’ and deviated from the plans and specifications, building code requirements and/or professional construction standards, to such an extent in order to increase its profits at the expense of the McDevitts, that the builder had to have known with substantial certainty that the McDevitts would be deprived of the full benefit of the Agreement,” the lawsuit says.
It adds: “In fact, when the McDevitts inquired about the defects, the builder’s principal and agent advised them not to bother pursuing the builder for the repair or reimbursement of the deficiencies, because the builder’s insurance policy has a very high deductible.”
Holly Winger, an attorney with New Haven-based Brenner Saltzman & Wallman, representing the builder said she and her client disagree with the allegations.
The lawsuit also names Charney & Sons of Wilton for electrical work and Milford-based Bloszko Plumbing & Heating. Their attorneys could not be reached for comment.
Officials with the Building Department said the matter of code violations has not been brought to their attention by the homeowners.
All three defendants caused the McDevitts loss of the use and enjoyment of their home and expenses for temporary housing, as well as costs for investigating and repairing defects, the lawsuit says. It isn’t clear how much compensation they’re seeking. The plaintiffs’ attorney could not be reached for comment.
Structural deficiencies on all levels of the home that the lawsuit cites include problems caused by joists and joist hangers carrying more load than prescribed by building code. Specifically, it says: Bearing walls were installed at different locations than prescribed by the framing and design plans; Non-load-bearing partitions were used as load-bearing walls; the location of one ore more closets interrupted the load; alterations were made to joists and I-joist flanges by incorrectly drilling and cutting to accommodate chimney piping, electrical and duct work; additional support framing in heavier load areas was lacking; web stiffeners were not used on I-joist webs in necessary areas; certain joist hanger connections were missing nails; double I-joists were installed in the wrong locations, without the necessary blocking, and contrary to the framing plans; and squash blocks were not installed in all areas as required.
In naming Charney as a defendant, the lawsuit said the electrician violated building codes and the system they installed “caused damage to the work of other subcontractors.” It levels the same accusation at Bloszko.
The case is listed for the short calendar for April 27. Charney last week filed for an extension that would allow them to respond by May 30.
[Note: The article has been updated with the New Canaan Building Department’s comment that the matter of code violations has not been brought to the town’s attention. It also has been updated by removing the name of the building contractor.]