We are renovating a house from 1888 which had obvious, noted structural damage that needed to be repaired at the time of purchase. Additional, uncovered damage was to be expected during the demo and remediation phase.

What was not expected is that the licensed and insured architect/general contractor did not provide any guidance to the *unlicensed* subs that he hired to perform the complicated structural repairs and they have now damaged many structural elements that were sound at the time of the original foundation inspection and removed significant structural members without replacing them (or making adequate substitutions).

I have been on the job site daily to visually inspect the work. When I was told that a significant structural element I knew had already failed at the time of my original inspection was going to be "repaired" with a cosmetic skim coat of stucco, I called back my original foundation inspector. This "stucco fix" was confirmed by the architect.

I think you know where this is going...these unlicensed butchers hacked up the foundation in places it didn't need to be hacked up, took it upon themselves to move a wall out 4.25" from its original location and the architect/GC did not stop them or provide them with structural plans or stop them when their work was determined to be sub-par.

Now, the cost to cure what they've done is in the $20-30K range (not to mention that I already paid $18,500 to the architect/GC for this work and that the unlicensed sub is trying to force a $7800 change order for work they performed without my permission or knowledge or sign off).

More importantly, by removing the critical structural members they have left the house at imminent risk of collapse per the new foundation and structural report. This morning, I called and had exterior support bracing placed around the structure until I know what to do next. I also have a call into a lawyer. I have my own builder's risk policy on the property, but I don't think I should have to make a claim against my own insurance since the architect/GC is licensed (and that insurance covers his subs, I hope).

I would like to express unconditionally that I would NEVER have let complicated structural work like this be performed by unlicensed guys if I were made aware of their status. However, I have since learned that the unlicensed sub bid the entire job ($100K+) back to the architect/GC which is a violation of state law.

(And let's not even get into the fact that the architect/GC cannot account for where *any* of the money - $50K - went from the next draw he requested. That seems to be an entirely separate issue.)

This rec to file w/homeowners insurance 1st
http://www.thomasgregory.com/the-resource-vault/white-papers/how-high-end-residential-gcs-get-themselves-into-trouble-/

http://www.asktheadjuster.com/

http://www.insuranceclaimhelp.org/insurance-claims-questions/

Good luck to you!

Everything will depend on the contract terms especially who was obligated to design the project, who was qualified to design the structure (probably not the architect but a structural engineer who is the most likely person to carry good liability/errors & omissions insurance) and who was responsible for hiring the subs and overseeing their work. Those terms are not always immediately clear in a design-build contract so you need a lawyer experienced in construction matters.

Often the strategy is to sue everyone and let them bring their insurance companies in to defend them. Often more than one insurance company will offer to settle (usually for the deductible amount).

You definitely want to avoid going up against lawyers from multiple large insurance companies in court no matter how good your case is.

It is also possible that your contract calls for arbitration or mediation.

At this point only an experienced professional who understands your contract and the nature of the dispute should be giving you specific advice.