Re: FW: Answering A Dehumidification Question

[Guest guest]

Pat:

Thanks for this Q & A. It seems so obvious, but I have had similar problems with insurance-company directed water damage restoration and reconstruction work. The specific problems I have had include the following:

1. Leaving drywall and insulation in place where the floor has been flooded, hoping that drying will suffice.

My position is that where there is wall insulation that lower drywall and wet insulation should be removed immediately so that drying can impact the wall cavities and prevent mold growth. For walls without insulation, removing baseboard and cutting numerous holes in the lower sheetrock may suffice.

2. Ignoring concrete slab moisture and directing new flooring to be installed without drying the concrete to acceptable levels for the flooring.

I have found that few consultants or contractors have moisture meters specific for concrete slabs, and I have found that many contractors ignore flooring manufacturers' requirements for moisture content prior to installation.

Few consultants or contractors appreciate how rapidly concrete slabs absorb moisture and how slowly they dry.

Don Schaezler, Ph.D., P.E., CIH

ETC Information Services, LLC

Cibolo, Texas

I thought the group may find the water damage restoration contractors question and my reply of interest. I've replied to several questions like this recently. I don't know if there is a growing trend of insurer's and adjusters questioning industry practice.

Hi Pat,

I would like to get your opinion as an issue I am having. Here is the situation...

Extensive water damage in a single floor condo that was not discovered for at least a week, three bedrooms, two baths and a dining room were affected. We pulled up all of the carpet and pad, base, etc. We set up dehumidification and then over the course of a few days did demo of all drywall, affected door casings etc. I am being told that the cost of dehumidification is not supported during the demo and the insurance company is refusing to pay for it. In other words, it is being suggested that we should not have put any drying equipment in place until all demo was completed.

May I have your opinion on this?

Thank you,

Barbara,

Restoration Manager

From: Pat Moffett Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:14 PM

To: 'Water Damage Contractor'Subject: Answering a Question

Barbara,

As an IICRC taskforce member for the IICRC/ANSI S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration, I remember having committee conversations about this very subject.

I believe the consensus of the industry is:

· Restorative drying equipment is required in Category 1, 2 and 3 situations even though some building materials and finishes will be removed at some point or while other non-damaged materials are dried or repaired in place.

· Dehumidification in these situations is a " control measure " for reducing high humidity while attempting to dry wet building materials and finishes (e.g., concrete, drywall, wood to wallpaper and veneer) that continue to be surface damp or are wet to the core of the material.

Based on your situation scenario: Since the water damage was not discovered for more than a week, demolition was appropriate and so was the use of dehumidifiers. Waiting to start the dehumidification process until the demolition and cleanup phase of work is complete may cause or result in secondary problems affecting the remaining contents and building materials and finishes. By not installing dehumidifiers, the contractor may be found negligent for not controlling high humidity in the environment or on materials that could have been saved. Also, by not installing dehumidifiers the contractor may be found negligent for allowing mold growth to occur. This situation falls under Special Situations as defined by IICRC.

Moffett