Collapsed Davenport building landlord files petition against engineering firm

A landlord who faces multiple lawsuits after the partial collapse of a Davenport apartment has filed a petition against an engineering firm that also is being sued.

Andrew Wold, listed as the owner of The Davenport, which partially collapsed May 28, and Davenport Hotel, LLC, have filed a cross-claim against Select Structural Engineers LLC, according to court documents filed Aug. 31 in Scott County Court.

Wold has been named as a defendant in Scott County lawsuits in connection with the partial collapse of The Davenport, an apartment building at 324 Main St., Davenport, on May 28. The incident killed three people and injured others.

The petition says Select Structural Engineering LLC “acted through its agents, including its employee David Valliere. Select Structural is liable for the negligent action of its employee David Valliere.”

Select Structural was hired to inspect the property, “including in particular the buiding’s west wall, and to provide professional engineering advice regarding the condition of the building and any repairs that needed to be performed on it,” according to the petition. (A cross-complaint, or cross claim, is an independent action brought by a party against a co-party to a lawsuit. The cross-complaint comes from the same transaction or occurrence of a plaintiff’s claim or occurrence of the claim against a defendant.)

The cross-claim plaintiffs, the petition says, “are not engineers. Accordingly, they relied entirely on Select Structural to advise them concerning the condition of the building, identify defects, if any, determine necessary repairs; and identify potential dangers to building residents and others posed by any defects in the building.”

The petition says that on Feb. 2, Valliere, a structural engineer employed by Select Structural, performed an inspection on the Davenport Hotel, and was given complete access to inspect any part of the building.

His report said “the main takeaway from the inspection is that this damaged area is not an imminent danger to the entire building and its residents. An evacuation or lockout of the building is not necessary at this time,” the petition says.

A localized area of brick “is cracked and crumbling” on the “west exterior wall,” the report said. The petition shows Valliere said “this is not an imminent threat to the building or its residents.” “Instead, Valliere advised that any damaged portions of the brick wall could be safely removed and replaced. Valliere recommended procedures that should be carried out to accomplish this.”

“At no point did Valliere suggest that the damage to the west wall posed a danger to the structural integrity of the building as a whole or a danger to residents or others,” the petition says. Valliere specifically told Wold the building was not in danger of collapse, and also told that to the city’s inspector, Trishna Pradham.

“As a result, the City determined that an evacuation of the building was not necessary and informed Cross-Claim Plaintiffs of that determination,” the petition shows.

“Relying on Valliere’s advice, Cross-Claim Plaintiffs immediately began repairing the west wall,” hiring a contractor to “swiftly” install shoring and supports called for by the report, the petition says.

The City, through its inspectors, regularly inspected and approved the repairs being performed, the petition says.

While performing repairs on the west wall, Bi-State identified a void between the facade and the supporting concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall. Valliere’s inspection report on Feb. 28, said the void space could be addressed by removing the brick facade in the area and then constructing an additional layer of CMU, saying “no other changes to the original repair program he had prescribed were necessary.”

“Valliere again told the Cross-Claim Plaintiffs and the City that the building was not at risk of collapse and did not need to be evacuated,” the petition says.

On May 17, Bi-State confirmed to the Cross-Claim Plaintiffs that it had completed the repairs to the west wall “consistent with Valliere’s reports.” Bi-State sought approval of completed repairs from the City, which gave approval.

On May 23, the petition says, Valliere entered a vacant apartment and opened an interior wall to investigate the condition of the west wall from the inside.

He then prepared another report for the Cross-Claim Plaintiffs and the City on May 24. He noted “there are several large patches of clay brick facade which are separating from the substrate.” He said it “may create a safety hazard to cars or passersby,” but did not indicate the building might collapse or that there was any danger to building residents. He suggested additional repairs that would allow the brick facade to be “brought down in a safe, controlled manner.”

The Cross-Claim Plaintiffs began performing the repairs for in the report “and continued to work on those repairs until the collapse occurred.” That included putting in shoring and supports.

The partial collapse occurred on May 28.

Accusations

The petition accuses Select Structural and Valliere of professional negligence, saying they “failed to use ordinary care, and in particular failed to perform their services with the degree of skill, care, and learning ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the engineering profession in good standing in similar circumstances.”

The petition also accused Select Structural and Valliere of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and alleges they are “at fault for the collapse of the Davenport Hotel and all damages resulting therefrom due to their negligent acts and omissions.”

Wold and Davenport Hotel LLC demand a jury trial.