In an earlier article on our website, we reported on an interim ruling in the case of the cracking roof. The interim ruling addressed the liability of the contractor and architect for damage to the roof of a newly built residential property. The court has now issued a final ruling. In this article, we discuss the key aspects of this ruling, the judicial expert investigation, and the implications for the parties involved.

Interim Ruling

In the interim ruling, it was determined that both the contractor and the architect were liable for damage to the roof, which was caused by the use of unsuitable roof elements. The contractor and architect were ordered in the interim ruling to jointly bear the repair costs, with the apportionment of repair costs to be determined in further proceedings.

Judicial expert examination

Following the interim ruling, a court-appointed expert investigation was conducted. This investigation revealed that replacement of the roof elements was necessary. The roof panels used, without edge battens, were not suitable for application in the construction. The expert investigation formed the basis for the court's recent final ruling. On the basis of the expert's report, the court revisited several binding decisions from the interim ruling. This review affected the allocation of liability and repair costs. In particular, the repair costs were amended because the court had ruled in its earlier interim judgment that replacement of roof elements was not necessary to remedy the popping and cracking roof, whereas the court reversed this position in its final judgment based on the court-appointed expert investigation.

No personal liability for contractor and architect

The court has determined that there is no joint and several liability of the contractor and architect for the costs of replacing the roof elements. In this case, where the client had engaged an architect to draw up structural calculations and construction drawings, the contractor's duty to warn does not extend so far as to require him to recognize that the roof elements prescribed in the construction drawing are inadequate for the chosen structure. As a result, the distribution of responsibility and costs for replacing the roof elements has been adjusted. The costs for replacing the roof elements are the responsibility of the architect and not the contractor.

The cracking roof was caused by a combination of different defects. These included defects in the structural drawings and/or construction drawings, as well as defects in the execution of the work. The defects that arose from a failure in the execution of the work are the responsibility of the contractor. The defects that arose from errors or omissions in the structural calculations and/or the construction drawings are the responsibility of the architect.

Cost allocation

The court applied a benefit rule in this case. Essentially, this was based on the fact that the homeowners would have incurred higher costs if they had built a roof directly using the materials that the court-appointed expert has now ordered, including the (more expensive) roof panels with edge battens. For that reason, the repair costs are borne by the homeowners themselves only in part.

Conclusion

The court has ruled in its final judgment that the contractor bears partial liability for the roof damage. The contractor must reimburse €5,862.00 of the repair costs. The architect bears the greater share of liability and must pay €58,109.54 of the repair costs, as well as the legal costs.

Read here the full ruling.

Law&Pepper Advocaten

Are you experiencing a ticking, cracking or popping roof after building or purchasing your home? Or are there other defects present? If so, please feel free to contact us. Our office has expertise in these matters and can put you in touch with parties who can assist you further. Whether it comes to building a case file (what is the problem, its cause, consequences, repair and repair costs) or recovering those costs from the seller, contractor and/or architect.