New fiberglass pool is full of cracks... HELP!

BadOleRoss said:
Is there any reason why you need to have this same builder re-install your new replacement pool?

Unfortunately, we do have to give him the opportunity to correct his work and fulfill the contract. But assuming he refuses to comply with the demand letter, our subsequent lawsuit would be for the money it would take for someone else to fix it, not to force the current builder to fix it.

I wonder though... several people here have mentioned insurance. Is it typical for builders to carry insurance that covers installation errors (not just liability, workers' comp, etc.)?

--Michael
 
You might be onto something with the insurance, does it mention who the insurance co is on the contract?
If he is unwilling to fix the issues you might be able to have your home owners insurance contact his ins and file a claim that way.
I have heard of people doing this for car insurance so I would think you would be able to do the same but not sure?
 
If he carries it his errors and omissions (E&O) would cover this. And not just his losses, but the entire amount of damages.

I am so glad to see you dug in your feet. I pray he is an Rear about it and you get to have another builder come in to fix it. Otherwise you would always wonder, did he "spit in your food"?

Is it just the potential profitability of pool work that draws a seemingly higher percentage of bad people to the industry?
 
Lershac said:
If he carries it his errors and omissions (E&O) would cover this. And not just his losses, but the entire amount of damages.

Do most builders carry E&O? I would imagine that if it's pretty common, he probably has it... his business is relatively high-profile (he has a nice retail store / showroom).

I am so glad to see you dug in your feet. I pray he is an *** about it and you get to have another builder come in to fix it. Otherwise you would always wonder, did he "spit in your food"?

Yeah, that's what my wife is thinking too... she's hoping he refuses to make good on the contract, freeing us up to have someone else (who is competent and has a genuine desire to provide a quality installation) come in and take care of it. But my hope would be that if he did decide to cooperate, he would be especially careful to do it right, knowing I'd be keeping an extra-close eye on the work.

We examined the pool closely again today... at this point we're both fairly certain the cracks are growing in length and quantity, including a group of cracks that now cuts all the way across the pool...


pool-cracks2.jpg


(new/grown cracks in red)

--Michael
 
PoolGuyNJ said:
AFAIK, there is no such thing as Stupid Insurance. I would expect the carrier to tell him "Too Bad."

Insurance is generally for things like someone falling in the hole but the area was properly marked with a construction fence.

LOL. I'm not sure how it works in the construction business, but in my field (photography), I have liability insurance in case a lightstand falls over onto grandma's head, equipment insurance that covers me in case my gear is stolen or destroyed, and E&O coverage in case I badly screw up the coverage of the event.


One important question that I've not been able to get an answer on... with a concrete footer poured around the deck, and the bricks attached to this footer, is an expansion joint required between this brick/footer unit and the subsequently poured deck?

IMG_0743.jpg


In this photo, you can see how the loosely-formed footer sticks out past the bricks in some areas, creating shallow ledge behind the bricks where the decking would almost certainly crack. But let's suppose on the re-do this is formed more carefully so that the footer is flush with the outer edge of the bricks... should there be an expansion joint?

Perhaps it's not needed... the bricks are attached to the footer, and if the decking expands (a large portion of it butts up to the house... it's only got one way it can go, towards the pool) it's going to push the footer and bricks together, not just the bricks (so maybe the bricks wouldn't pop loose). But then again, I feel it's one of those "better to have it just in case" kinds of things. I just don't know for certain, and I suspect the builder will resist, so if it really is important to have an expansion joint, I want it to be written into my demand letter.

Of the two builders I've been consulting with, one of them does not pour a footer, and sets the coping bricks directly on top of the pool shell with a flexible adhesive (accommodating movement of the bricks when the decking expands) with the decking serving as the footer by being poured underneath the bricks and rim of the shell, while the other does a fairly thin (1/8") expansion joint between the coping/footer and the deck.

Anyone have any additional advice on this?

--Michael
 
Bama Rambler said:
That crack pattern is very typical of 'high centering'. The mfg should have recognized it right off (and probably did).

The manufacturer rep hasn't seen the cracks... when he came to see the pool back in March (to check out the pool being unlevel), the water was too murky to see the bottom. The only crack visible was a small one near the outer edge of the lip (which is now covered with the coping) in that area that curves in. Incidentally, the builder now insists this was a "mold mark", though since it was on that edge of the lip (where the structure ends, revealing a cross-section of the fiberglass/gelcoat), it was clear that this was a crack in the gelcoat, not just a surface mold mark. Yet another example of him trying to tell me what he thinks I need to hear.

Anyway, I suspect the manufacturer was simply trying to help the builder out financially. The builder is located in a great spot for visibility (on an Interstate service road, with his display pool upright on a trailer catching many eyes), and I'm sure the manufacturer does not want the builder's bad experience with my pool to potentially discourage him away from fiberglass.

So, the two of them ganged up on me and insisted this hump in the middle was no big deal (and that it was caused by "rain"). He almost certainly knew (or should have known, at least) such a sharp bend in the structure would surely result in gelcoat cracks, maybe even worse. But I guess they calculated that the hassle and expense of pulling the pool now was not worth it to them... better to just leave it in place, finish the job, and if it did turn out to be a problem later, they'd either deal with it then or cite "ground shifting" as a reason to deny the warranty claim.

One of several things that prompted me to put my foot down last week and take a stand was that I could not get in touch with the manufacturer rep, despite numerous attempts... I had questions about how the repairs were to be done, and what kind of warranty support I could expect in the future if a large number of cracks continued to appear. After a while, I began to get the distinct impression that he was avoiding me... perhaps his willingness to help the builder through this crisis has its limits, and he just doesn't want to deal with it anymore.

This alarmed me, as he hasn't even seen the cracks. The builder is probably describing them as "just a couple of hairline gelcoat cracks", and my worry was that the manufacturer's repair guy would show up after the pool was complete, see this vast intertwined network of cracks, and say "there's no way I can fix all these... you might as well just completely strip and re-gelcoat the pool". They would then pull the "sorry, the rain caused your pool to shift so it's not covered" card.

--Michael
 
Man, kudo's to you and your wife for standing firm despite the pressure from installer and manufacturer (not mention kids who desperately want to swim).
I hope this works out for the best, it's too bad that one bad decision to push thru with the night install led to all this mess. Hopefully the installer comes to realize his mistake and decides that adding lawyer fees on top of a re-do is not the way to go.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
cramar said:
Man, kudo's to you and your wife for standing firm despite the pressure from installer and manufacturer (not mention kids who desperately want to swim).

The past few days have been very rough. Our neighbors across the street had a big pool party (we could watch through one of our upstairs windows), and the weather has been perfect. I had bought my wife some patio furniture for her birthday in April, anticipating the completion of the pool, and it's all stuffed into the shed now. Plus the kids' last day of school is today... in addition to spending family time together swimming, our daughters were so looking forward to inviting their friends over during the summer. That's all out the window too. They're being very good about it (my wife and I are whining and ranting about it much more than they are), but I know they are extremely disappointed.

Heck, our entire backyard looks like a bomb practice range (we can't grade/sod until this is all worked out), so we don't even have any place for the kids to play.

All our summer plans have been ruined thanks to this guy. I know I said before that I don't "hate" him and don't wish him to lose money, but after stewing on all this for a while, I'm not so sure. He's stolen precious time that we can never get back, and continues to do so every day that goes by with inaction. He's simply playing a money game right now... he knows how anxious we are to have the pool finished, and is counting on this working in his favor. So, I expect his response to the demand letter will be a modestly higher compensation offer, hoping this will be enough to entice us into keeping this pool, but given everything we've learned and observed over the past few weeks, we're well beyond that point.

Still, despite feeling absolutely despondent over all this, I do realize that things could always be worse. We're going to make the best of our summer, and just decided to go on a last-minute mini vacation in a few weeks to get away from here for a while (and go swimming!). Meanwhile, we'll try to forget about this sparkling (but cracked) pool sitting right there in our yard.


I hope this works out for the best, it's too bad that one bad decision to push thru with the night install led to all this mess. Hopefully the installer comes to realize his mistake and decides that adding lawyer fees on top of a re-do is not the way to go.

Hopefully so. And keep in mind, the stakes go up dramatically if he refuses to fix this... if it goes to court, we'll be suing for the money for someone ELSE to fix the pool, not to force him to do it. Pretty much the same amount of work needs to happen regardless of who replaces the shell, but if the current builder does it, there are things he can do to reduce his costs. Perhaps the manufacturer will give him a discount on the replacement shell, and maybe he can refurbish and sell the damaged shell. He might be able to re-use the tile and brick materials, plus the current tanning ledge is ok and can stay (if another company comes in and installs a different brand of shell, the tanning ledge will have to be replaced with a matching one from them). And there's profit of course... a different builder is not going to do the job at his cost with no markup.

So, what might cost our builder a net of $10,000 - $15,000 if he does it himself will cost $25,000 - $30,000 for someone else to do. And then there's the "loss of enjoyment of pool/yard" damages, which will add up as this drags on.

But again, being forced to have another builder come in and do the work would actually be a blessing.

--Michael
 
ConcreteJack said:
ouachita said:
In my opinion you do need an expansion joint between the coping and concrete decking.

You always need an expansion joint between the coping and the concrete deck. No questions asked. It's OK for part of the deck to rest on the bond beam that sticks out behind the coping, though.

Thanks, Jack. Is this still the case if the deck that overlaps the collar would only be 5/8" thick?

IMG_0740.jpg


These bricks aren't very thick, so that "ledge" behind them would result in just a very thin layer of deck being poured there. Here's a cross-section illustration:

coping.jpg


--Michael
 
Don't forget to keep track of your chemical cost, eletric and labor. It's kind of silly to maintain a pool you probably can't use other than to be able to show the rep the cracks. Other than that, if it goes to court add those cost in there as well.

Tracy
 
mcaswell said:
ConcreteJack said:
ouachita said:
In my opinion you do need an expansion joint between the coping and concrete decking.

You always need an expansion joint between the coping and the concrete deck. No questions asked. It's OK for part of the deck to rest on the bond beam that sticks out behind the coping, though.

Thanks, Jack. Is this still the case if the deck that overlaps the collar would only be 5/8" thick?

IMG_0740.jpg


These bricks aren't very thick, so that "ledge" behind them would result in just a very thin layer of deck being poured there. Here's a cross-section illustration:

coping.jpg


--Michael

I just don't see any way where that could be right!
 
So I recall the pool builder wanting to pour the deck to hold the pool in place when drained to repair ... how would 5/8" of concrete be able to hold the same force as ~90,000 lbs of water???

Still hoping for a quick acceptable solution for you ...
 
jblizzle said:
So I recall the pool builder wanting to pour the deck to hold the pool in place when drained to repair ... how would 5/8" of concrete be able to hold the same force as ~90,000 lbs of water???

Yes, that was my thought as well. However, it's a bit more complicated than that. The section where the decking would only be 5/8" thick is in the middle, which presumably would mostly stay put if the pool were to be drained (though I'm sure even the slightest movement would cause that thin of a pour to break). The ends, since they're drooping down, would have a thicker (from top to bottom) overlap of the decking, but since the footer is not as wide in these areas (doesn't stick out past the bricks as much compared to middle part), there wouldn't be as much of a "ledge" to overlap.

So regardless, I had serious doubts as to the ability of a small edge of concrete to hold down the shell with the water removed, so I was thinking that in order for this to have any chance of working, holes would have to be drilled into the collar every few feet with rebar inserted to spread this force out into the deck a bit more. But that got me thinking that there would be no way to do an expansion joint.

However, that's all not a factor anymore, as I intend to have this shell replaced.

My question now is regarding how it should be done (if this builder agrees to redo), as I want to put this in my demand letter. I think the footer should be formed more carefully (so that it follows the contour of the outer edge of the coping, so no shallow "ledge" will be present behind the bricks), and I also think there should be an expansion joint behind the bricks (as ConcreteJack confirmed), though what I'm unsure about is whether this expansion joint can (or should be) all the way from top to bottom, completely isolating the collar/coping from the deck, or if it's ok for there to only be an expansion joint behind the bricks (letting the deck come into complete contact with the collar underneath the bricks).

I suspect the builder is going to insist that the deck needs to tie into the collar (so no full expansion joint, just a partial-depth expansion joint behind the bricks), and maybe it does, but at this point I don't exactly have a lot of confidence in what he says, as listening to his view how things should be done is what got me here.

--Michael
 
I agree with you re: the concrete collar. The way it is right now would certainly not work well for long. As CJ said above, an expansion joint is always necessary to prevent ugly cracks, and while I'm not an expert, I see no way to do this except having the concrete and coping be exactly the same width.
 
Some shells have a canter levered deck.

AFAIK, all shells should have rebar run out from holes in the perimeter of the shell extending outward to lock in a shell.

I have never seen an expansion joint between the deck and fiberglass edge. The shell has enough give. I have seen the concrete chip though this is far different from a crack.

The 3/8" thick part shown would likely crack, even with a bond coat. It should be treated as tile would be, using thin-set mortar. The man who taught me shells required a 3' collar and no pavers or coping stone/brick be used. If the prospect wanted it, they went elsewhere. I have also seen construction adhesive used but the client knew in advance the bricks would need to be redone in short order.

Forewarned is forearmed. When people are given the whole story, not just what they want to hear, is it unusual to have a poor relationship form. Setting and meeting expectations is so important.

Scott
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.