What You See is Not What You Get

Jun 14, 2019

Joel Dagenais knows how to build businesses. He began his career in the restoration industry in 1989 by doing it all for a small insurance restoration firm in Ottawa, Ontario – marketing, estimating and project management – helping to double the company’s volume during his three-year tenure. In 1992, he and a partner purchased a First General Services franchise. Having developed plenty of contacts in the insurance industry from the prior company, he was able to secure an exclusive relationship with a large insurer within two months. Selling his ownership interest to his partner that same year, he opened a First General Services office in Hull, Quebec, and grew that to the largest restoration contractor in the area.

While developing the Hull office he exercised an option to develop the entire province of Quebec, and sold 15 franchises for a total of 16 locations; and then in 2007 he sold the entire master franchise system. Along the way he also became the exclusive distributor for Xactware in Canada and in four years increased sales eight-fold. Early this year Dagenais acquired the franchisor company for the First General Services system in the U.S., based in Orlando, Fla.; and he hopes to expand the existing network throughout the U.S. within five years.

Having such a broad base of experience in the restoration industry means there are quite a few stories to share.One recollection involved a safety-related teaching moment: In the late ‘90s his company was working on a large commercial water loss at a private school. The workers were thoroughly trained in how to handle water mitigation. Back then they wore ordinary work clothes with some personal protective equipment such as respirators when needed. Their typical water loss jobs were residential where the worst risk was that some wet drywall might fall on someone; but the school was a commercial-style building. Among other typical commercial features, it had suspended ceilings with fibrous tiles and 2′ x 4′ fluorescent light fixtures covered by acrylic lenses.

Because it was a fair-sized loss, the project manager had gone to the site to make sure they wouldn’t miss any areas that needed drying or that might create mold issues.The crew was working on the second floor where the water damage had occurred, while the project manager was on the ground floor performing his inspection. Unbeknownst to the crew or the project manager, water had accumulated on the first floor’s ceiling tiles; in fact, the tiles had absorbed a tremendous amount of water, yet they had stayed intact rather than collapsing out of the grid.

The school was an older wooden structure and the crew’s work activity caused the second-floor joists to deflect. The ceiling grid was attached to those floor joists; and this movement, along with the accumulated weight of the now-sodden tiles, caused some of the fasteners to suddenly pull loose from the joists. The abrupt, partial drop twisted the steel grid; and because the light fixtures were just sitting in the grid rather than being independently attached to the joists, they dropped with the grid – causing several of the acrylic lenses to fracture into pieces that fell on the projec tmanager. Because he wasn’t wearing a hardhat, he suffered a deep gash in his head – about three to four inches long in a half-moon shape. Bad enough, of course, but he was fortunate not to have suffered a more serious injury. Had a larger and heavier object fallen on him, the consequences could have been fatal.

Dagenais is frank in acknowledging that they didn’t handle the safety precautions correctly. They never imagined that so much water could accumulate in a dropped ceiling without causing the individual tiles to cave in, but they still should have prodded the tiles to make sure there wasn’t a potential hazard. And they didn’t anticipate that the fasteners used to attach the grid to the second-deck joists might be inadequate for the added load caused by the accumulation of water.

Current commercial code would require that both the grid and the light fixtures be attached to the joists with screws – but because this was an older building they had been nailed, and the light fixtures were simply nested in the grid instead of being independently attached. One lesson learned was to never assume how a structure has been put together, even a commercial building.They treated what was in effect a construction site (which automatically would have warranted the wearing of hardhats) as an ordinary water mitigation job. Lesson two was to never repeat that mistake.

A commercial loss environment is very different froma residential loss environment. Even if a water mitigation crew is well-trained, they don’t necessarily know what’s behind the walls unless they’ve also been trained as general contractors. Unlike a fire loss, where potential hazards are well understood, the prevailing attitude with water loss work is, “it’s water… can’t hurtcha.” But experience is the best teacher, and Dagenais believes that it takes a licensed, fullservice general contractor – one that understands how a commercial building is constructed – to safely handle commercial restoration work.

Read Next - Is your site safety orientation a hazard?

You might also like

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/
21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management
13 Oct, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: