Home ] Appearance Retention Reports ] Browning Reports ] Cleaning Errors Reports ] Color Loss Reports ] Delamination Reports ] Design Flaws Reports ] Double Stick Reports ] Fading Reports ] Fuzzing Reports ] Installation Reports ] Latex Problems Reports ] Lines, Bands, & Streaks Reports ] Maintenance Reports ] Matting & Crushing Reports ] Pooling Reports ] Shedding Reports ] Side Match Reports ] Specification Reports ] Thickness & Weight Reports ] Upholstery Reports ] Water Damage Reports ] Yarn Slippage Reports ] Yellowing Reports ]


[ El Nino rains enters house ] Houston Flood destroys houses ] Roof Leak make Mold ] Rug Stays Wet from Broken Pipe in Concrete ] Water Damage Fraud ]


Home ]

 

El Nino rains enters house

This report was written for the insurance company

THE CLAIM STATISTICS

INSPECTOR WAS CONTACTED ON: 9/4/98

INSPECTOR WAS RETAINED ON: 9/4/98

DATE INSPECTED: 9/15/98

DATE WRITTEN: 9/29/98

NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS: 0

PROBLEM REPORTED: Water Damage

PROBLEM FOUND: See Report

WAS A DIAGRAM MADE?: No

SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: None Taken

PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant's Son

 

THE CARPET

MANUFACTURER: Not Available

NUMBER on BACKING: Not Applicable

FIBER/ ID METHOD: Olefin-See Report

FIBER HUE: Gray

CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Loop

YARN STYLE: See Report

SQUARE YARDAGE: Not Report

BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted

PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene

SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene

 

THE INSTALLATION

DEALER: Not Available

INSTALLER: Same As Dealer

TYPE LOCATION: Residential

DATE INSTALLED: See Report

METHOD: See Report

SUBFLOOR: See Report

AREA INSTALLED: Den, Livingroom, Hallway, 3 Bedrooms & Studio

 

USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION

LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined

TEMPERATURE: 73°F - 22.7° C RH 4400%

ADULTS: 3 - CHILDREN: 0 - PET(S): 4 - 2 Dogs & 2 Birds

DO THEY SMOKE? Yes

SPOTTING AGENTS: 409

VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Upright See Report

ENTRY-MATS: Yes

SOIL: See Report

HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas

COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric

CLEANING: See Report

 

INSTRUCTION FOR THIS INSPECTION

Access damages made from water damage versus wear and tear of the carpets in question.

 

THE REPORT

Site Conditions and Geographical Information

This is a free standing, owner-occupied, single-story house located just off the I-405 and Highway 101 freeways in the San Fernando Valley.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR

Six or seven months before this inspection, on several different occasions, water from El Nino rains entered this house causing part of the kitchen ceiling to cave in. The diningroom and studio carpets adjacent to this kitchen got wet during this period. Later dark spots formed on the diningroom carpet while the studio carpet formed ridges. Reportedly no corrections were attempted to fix carpet. Some dog-wetting accidents were successfully treated in the livingroom prior to the rains.

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR

Plastic sheets covered an area of the kitchen ceiling that allegedly caved-in. The carpet in the studio was a commercial grade level-loop that had been installed by the direct glue down method. The rest of the house had the level-loop residential carpet that had been stretched-in. The subfloor in the dining room was wood, whereas the rest of the carpet was installed over slab.

Dark or black discoloration was noted in the diningroom. Spotted areas were large and surrounded the perimeter of the diningroom table. Edges of the affected area were irregular and the hand of the spotted area was slightly moist and tacky. There was no odor noted. Probing the carpet with an awl indicated that yarns were not loose and that there was no delamination.

Dark discolored areas were noted in the trafficked areas of the studio except for the area under a rug. Small ridges were noted running the length of the carpet. Probing this carpet with an awl seemed to indicate that the ridges were due to delamination.

Spots in the livingroom from the reported pet accidents were more of a round or yellow hue. They had no apparent odor and the hand was stiff.

 

ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING

Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. This test would indicate the presence of moisture locked-up in salt compounds from urine and excessive residues. Around the diningroom table in the spotted area, the results of these tests showed moisture readings off the scale. In the livingroom where dog accidents had reportedly occurred, the results of the test were moderate; while in the studio, the results of the test showed that there was no moisture found in the carpet.

Numerous moisture tests were performed on the walls and ceiling using a TRAMEX MOISTURE ENCOUNTER. This devise measures the percentage of moisture in the area that was being tested. This devise is suitable for measuring moisture in wood, sheet-rock and concrete. The results of these tests revealed little to no moisture found in ceilings or walls of the areas where water damage had reportedly occurred.

An ammonium salts test was performed using a test kit from E. M Science. Ammonium salts are a by-product of urine deposits. The test was run only in the area around the diningroom table and the results of this test revealed that there were no amount of ammonium salts.

A general spotting test was performed in the diningroom carpet by applying water to the carpet and blotting the area with a towel. The results of this test revealed that the carpet could be easily cleaned.

 

THE ISSUE

The issue of this report is: what effect has the water damage had on the carpet in question versus normal usage and maintenance.

 

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE

Standards for Water damage Carpet are published by the INSTITUTE of INSPECTION CLEANING & RESTORATION CERTIFICATION and are called the Standard and Reference Guide for Water Damage Restoration S500 and can be obtained directly from the IICRC by calling (360) 693-5675 or writing them at 2715 East Mill Plain Blvd., Vancouver, WA 98661.

TEXT FROM THE S-500 WATER DAMAGE STANDARDS

PRINCIPLES OF RESTORATIVE DRYING: There are four general principles to consider before materials subjected to water damage can be effectively returned to a pre-loss condition. They are:

1. Extraction - Extraction of excess water may include such simple steps as mopping or soaking up excess moisture from hard surfaces; but usually it refers to the use of more sophisticated technique equipment including pumps or specially designed commercial wet vacuuming equipment.

2. Evaporation - Once excess water is removed, remaining water must be changed from a liquid to a vapor by promoting evaporation. Normally, this is accomplished most efficiently with specialized air moving equipment.

3. Dehumidification - Once moisture is evaporated from structural and contents materials into the air, it must be removed through dehumidification if substantial secondary damage, along with significant health hazard, is to be avoided.

4. Temperature Control - Both evaporation and dehumidification are greatly enhanced by controlling temperature in a confined environment. Additionally, microorganism growth is temperature related Thus, temperature modification and control is an important basic principle for safe, effective drying. It is upon these principles that IICRC S500 is based.

 

THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS

Following industry standards such as the Standard and Reference Guide for Water Damage Restoration S500 are important if the aesthetics and performance of the carpet are to be restored. By not doing anything, discoloring, odors, mildew, and delamination can adversely affect the carpet. Essential to starting the restoration process is stopping the flow of water. Testing with the Tramex Moisture Encounter indicates there is no more water in the ceiling and walls.

Susceptibility to these problems will depend upon the carpet's vulnerability to prolonged wetness. In this case, olefin does not hold water easily and does not support microbial growth. Furthermore, ammoniated salt testing indicates that the problem in the diningroom is not from urine.

Carpet that does stay wet for a prolonged period of time will soil at a very high rate. Therefore it is likely that the water damage did play a very significant role in a soiling problem. Proper action at this time would be to deodorize and clean the carpet.

Probing the carpet with the awl indicates that the dimensional stability has not been affected. The cushion under the carpet and the wooden subfloor could have some concealed damage, but moisture reading indicates they were not. Lifting the carpet back in this area for a more thorough investigation was beyond the normal perimeter of an inspection of this kind and would require an installation crew.

Buckling of a direct-glue-down carpet could be either from a failure in the installation or from the separation of the primary and secondary backings. Probing the carpet with an awl is a judgement call based upon experience and in this case delamination seemed to have occurred. Prolonged wetness could have created this problem. Thus, if there was no buckling before the water damage, then the rains could have caused irreversible damage to this carpet.

 

CONCLUSION

Water damage in the diningroom carpet has caused a soiling problem that can be corrected with proper cleaning, based upon observations and testing done at the time of the inspection.

Water damage in the studio carpet has caused delamination based upon observations and background information from the claimant. Replacement is recommended.