There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.

Falscher Bruce wrote:
==================
>
> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>

** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.

A whole bunch of entities are potentially liable for this disaster - not just the owner's association.
Original architects, design engineers, builder's and sub contractors, local approval authorities and any inspectors that have OK'd the place for decades.

From what I has been published, it was a sub standard type of construction from day one - built on a bed of unstable sand.
IOW a disaster waiting to happen.

Neighboring buildings are likely in the same boat - ie the SS Titanic.

Insurers will try to deny all claims based on the *professional negligence* of all the above.
Criminal charges are possible for some, cos of all the deaths.

Nasty.

....... Phil

"Phil Allison" <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a62cbb55-46b2-43f5-bc55-2694f13f138bn@googlegroups.com...
> Falscher Bruce wrote:
> ==================
>>
>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
>> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>>
>
> ** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.
>
> A whole bunch of entities are potentially liable for this disaster - not
> just the owner's association.
> Original architects, design engineers, builder's and sub contractors,
> local approval authorities and any inspectors that have OK'd the place for
> decades.
>
> From what I has been published, it was a sub standard type of construction
> from day one - built on a bed of unstable sand.
> IOW a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Neighboring buildings are likely in the same boat - ie the SS Titanic.
>
> Insurers will try to deny all claims based on the *professional
> negligence* of all the above.
> Criminal charges are possible for some, cos of all the deaths.
>
> Nasty.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57621774

On 26/06/2021 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>
They are suing for a figure in excess of $5 million. Seems to just be a
figure to get things rolling.

I assume they are suing because people bought next door to a condominium
and now it's a flat full of flatmates

It was written by Dechucka:

> I assume they are suing because people bought next door to a condominium
> and now it's a flat full of flatmates

LOL!

Naughty Dechucka, in a quite macabre way! (Go back to bed)!

Silly me thought such black humour was more of a Hungarian speciality.

--
Ördög ---- I the newsgroup Devil will show you the real Hell on Earth.

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:58:43 AM UTC+8, Rod Speed wrote:
> > Nasty.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57621774

this engineering forum has pretty good coverage of multiple issues at the building:
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=484587

On 6/26/2021 8:28 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Falscher Bruce wrote:
> ==================
>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
>> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>>
> ** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.
>
> A whole bunch of entities are potentially liable for this disaster - not just the owner's association.
> Original architects, design engineers, builder's and sub contractors, local approval authorities and any inspectors that have OK'd the place for decades.
>
> From what I has been published, it was a sub standard type of construction from day one - built on a bed of unstable sand.
> IOW a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Neighboring buildings are likely in the same boat - ie the SS Titanic.
>
> Insurers will try to deny all claims based on the *professional negligence* of all the above.
> Criminal charges are possible for some, cos of all the deaths.
>
> Nasty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shades of building seven!.

>
>
> ...... Phil
>
>
>
>

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene
Spafford, 1992

On 27/06/2021 1:49 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 6/26/2021 8:28 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>   Falscher Bruce wrote:
>> ==================
>>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
>>> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>>>
>> ** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.
>>
>> A whole bunch of entities are potentially liable for this disaster -
>> not just the owner's association.
>> Original architects, design engineers, builder's and sub contractors,
>> local approval authorities and any inspectors that have OK'd the place
>> for decades.
>>
>>  From what I has been published, it was a sub standard type of
>> construction from day one - built on a bed of unstable sand.
>> IOW a disaster waiting to happen.
>>
>> Neighboring buildings are likely in the same boat -   ie the SS Titanic.
>>
>> Insurers will try to deny all claims based on the *professional
>> negligence* of all the above.
>> Criminal charges are possible for some, cos of all the deaths.
>>
>> Nasty.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Shades of building seven!.

You mean this was caused by thermite placed by the jewish/moslem league
under Soros in conjunction with the OWG (who we all know are blood
sucking shape-shifting reptilians from Alpha Draconis) as the WTC was.

You are way off the mark this was done by the democrats because some
people there were going to expose the democrat's child trafficking
paepophile ring and the Satanic covenstead where rituals were preformed
on the 6th floor in room 66. They moved there after their Comet
Ping-pong base was discover.

TIC

On 26-Jun-21 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
> There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>

And more recent reports indicated that far from this being a sudden
collapse with no warning, it was recognised three years ago that there
were significant structural problems, with remedial work schedule to
start shortly.

If no one goes down for causing death by criminal negligence (however
that offence is characterised) over this, then they might as well
abolish that law.

Sylvia.

Phil Allison wrote:
===============
>
>
> > There is a class action suing the condominium association for $5,000,000
> > Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
> >
> ** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.

** There is more to it:

A US lawyer, experienced in dealing with cases involving Condos ( known a Stratas here)
commented ( on U-tube) that the real reason was to have orders served that documents
held by all previous directors be preserved.

Cos shredding machines tend to get busy when shit like this happens.

....... Phil

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 7:16:42 PM UTC+8, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote:
> A US lawyer, experienced in dealing with cases involving Condos ( known a Stratas here)
> commented ( on U-tube) that the real reason was to have orders served that documents
> held by all previous directors be preserved.
>
> Cos shredding machines tend to get busy when shit like this happens.

probably someone on the council of owners will claim that a bunch of documents were in apartment XYZ that is now under the concrete pancake

On 6/27/2021 2:05 PM, Dechucka wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 1:49 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 8:28 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>   Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>> ==================
>>>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for
>>>> $5,000,000
>>>> Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they have.
>>>>
>>> ** Reckon that group is just establishing their claim first.
>>>
>>> A whole bunch of entities are potentially liable for this disaster -
>>> not just the owner's association.
>>> Original architects, design engineers, builder's and sub
>>> contractors, local approval authorities and any inspectors that have
>>> OK'd the place for decades.
>>>
>>>  From what I has been published, it was a sub standard type of
>>> construction from day one - built on a bed of unstable sand.
>>> IOW a disaster waiting to happen.
>>>
>>> Neighboring buildings are likely in the same boat -   ie the SS
>>> Titanic.
>>>
>>> Insurers will try to deny all claims based on the *professional
>>> negligence* of all the above.
>>> Criminal charges are possible for some, cos of all the deaths.
>>>
>>> Nasty.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Shades of building seven!.
>
> You mean this was caused by thermite placed by the jewish/moslem
> league under Soros in conjunction with the OWG (who we all know are
> blood sucking shape-shifting reptilians from Alpha Draconis) as the
> WTC was.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 No.

>
>
> You are way off the mark this was done by the democrats because some
> people there were going to expose the democrat's child trafficking
> paepophile ring and the Satanic covenstead where rituals were
> preformed on the 6th floor in room 66. They moved there after their
> Comet Ping-pong base was discover.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UH-HUH.

>
> TIC
>
>

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene
Spafford, 1992

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:40 +1000
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 26-Jun-21 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
> > There is a class action suing the condominium association for
> > $5,000,000 Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they
> > have.
>
> And more recent reports indicated that far from this being a sudden
> collapse with no warning, it was recognised three years ago that
> there were significant structural problems, with remedial work
> schedule to start shortly.
>
> If no one goes down for causing death by criminal negligence (however
> that offence is characterised) over this, then they might as well
> abolish that law.
>
> Sylvia.

Wonder how many Australian high rise buildings will suffer the same
fate, in the years to come. Slums of the future.

On 08-Jul-21 3:36 pm, James Morrison wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:40 +1000
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 26-Jun-21 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for
>>> $5,000,000 Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they
>>> have.
>>
>> And more recent reports indicated that far from this being a sudden
>> collapse with no warning, it was recognised three years ago that
>> there were significant structural problems, with remedial work
>> schedule to start shortly.
>>
>> If no one goes down for causing death by criminal negligence (however
>> that offence is characterised) over this, then they might as well
>> abolish that law.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Wonder how many Australian high rise buildings will suffer the same
> fate, in the years to come. Slums of the future.
>

Dunno. But it's not as we have a "she'll be right" attitude here.... oh,
wait, this is the country the saying originated in.

Still, this disaster in the USA is a wake up call - buildings can
collapse in the western world, and cracks and spalling cannot safely be
ignored for years.

Sylvia.

On 8/07/2021 4:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-Jul-21 3:36 pm, James Morrison wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:40 +1000
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26-Jun-21 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for
>>>> $5,000,000 Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they
>>>> have.
>>>
>>> And more recent reports indicated that far from this being a sudden
>>> collapse with no warning, it was recognised three years ago that
>>> there were significant structural problems, with remedial work
>>> schedule to start shortly.
>>>
>>> If no one goes down for causing death by criminal negligence (however
>>> that offence is characterised) over this, then they might as well
>>> abolish that law.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Wonder how many Australian high rise buildings will suffer the same
>> fate, in the years to come.  Slums of the future.
>>
>
> Dunno.

Hasn't fallen over but think Mascot Towers.

> But it's not as we have a "she'll be right" attitude here.... oh,
> wait, this is the country the saying originated in.
>
> Still, this disaster in the USA is a wake up call - buildings can
> collapse in the western world, and cracks and spalling cannot safely be
> ignored for years.
>
> Sylvia.

On 08-Jul-21 5:05 pm, Dechucka wrote:
> On 8/07/2021 4:57 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 08-Jul-21 3:36 pm, James Morrison wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:39:40 +1000
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26-Jun-21 8:02 pm, Falscher Bruce wrote:
>>>>> There is a class action suing the condominium association for
>>>>> $5,000,000 Only 5 million? I guess that is how much insurance they
>>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>> And more recent reports indicated that far from this being a sudden
>>>> collapse with no warning, it was recognised three years ago that
>>>> there were significant structural problems, with remedial work
>>>> schedule to start shortly.
>>>>
>>>> If no one goes down for causing death by criminal negligence (however
>>>> that offence is characterised) over this, then they might as well
>>>> abolish that law.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Wonder how many Australian high rise buildings will suffer the same
>>> fate, in the years to come.  Slums of the future.
>>>
>>
>> Dunno.
>
> Hasn't fallen over but think Mascot Towers.
>
>

That's a case in point. Deaths are not caused by cracking, but by
ignoring cracking.

Sylvia.