Return to previous page

Response to Mr. West's Announcement of 10 December

Good afternoon,

Favil West’s 10 December announcement in the Anthem Compendium concerning possible remedies being negotiated between Pulte and individual homeowners over alleged defective Kitec brass fittings raises as many questions as are answered. In particular your attention is directed to the following paragraph in Mr. West’s announcement.

“A number of our residents, whose houses have already been inspected, received a letter last week from Del Webb/Pulte Homes offer[ing] the resident “monetary compensation in the amount of $7,800.” They offered the names of contractors who would do the work as outlined in the letter which includes replacing the faulty fittings and/or, re-plumbing of the house from the overhead. What this means is that, if the offer is accepted by the resident, the resident will be the contracting party.”

Clearly, shifting liability from Pulte to the homeowner will greatly relieve Pulte from any future liability from any construction defect lawsuit since the alleged defect would have been remedied insofar as the law is concerned. The unanswered question then becomes whether Pulte’s offer constitutes a remedy that will in fact mitigate the potential problem in its entirety and at no cost to the homeowner, or whether their offer of compensation will mitigate only a portion of the problem, leaving the homeowner on the hook for any needed work that is not covered by the amount of the settlement.

 Here are some other questions that need addressing:

  1. Is the monetary compensation being offered intended to cover all (or only a portion) of the total costs involved in remedying the potential problem?
  2. Is the $7,800 figure being offered a fixed amount regardless of the size of the home? I’ve been told that the cost to re-plumb larger homes from the overhead attic down could cost as much as $12,000, possible more.
  3. The scope of “re-plumbing of the house from the overhead” leaves open the question of whether the proposed “re-plumbing” effort covers ALL plumbing lines, as one might assume, or merely only certain plumbing lines.
  4. What is the zinc content of the new fittings that would be used in re-plumbing. Replacing high zinc content fittings that are known to be defective (Kitec) with fittings of unknown quality (based on the percent of zinc content making up the brass alloy) may be moving the problem to a later date rather than eliminating the problem altogether.
  5. Should anyone accept replacement of the faulty fittings instead of re-plumbing from the overhead? This issue begs the question of how much you know about the location of those faulty fittings in your home. Cox & Sons Plumbing may not be able to guarantee that no fittings were used in making the underground runs (in or below the concrete slab) between the garage and the various locations where the flex pipe connects to the stubs for the bath and water fixtures. Absent that guarantee, should the homeowner assume that risk and future potential liability in the event of a sale for making the wrong decision? Here is a story that might make a cautious resident think twice about this matter. A non-Sun City “test” home in Las Vegas was alleged to have a total of 18 fittings at risk, based on the number of accessible above ground fittings located behind the wallboard. Upon further investigation of the buried plumbing lines, however, there were more than twice as many Kitec brass fittings buried in concrete (or worse in soil) that were not accessible for inspection, repair, or replacement than the number of above ground fittings. I was told that this information has been provided to the Judge in this case, along with a recommendation that the only remedy possible would be a total re-plumb of the house from the overhead.  
  6. Are the designated contractors obligated to accept the amount offered by Pulte as constituting full and complete compensation for the cost of re-plumbing, assuming that is the homeowner’s decision, or is the homeowner obligated for the difference between the “settlement” and what the contractor charges?    
  7. If the homeowner is obligated for the difference, why is Pulte offering only a partial remedy rather than a full remedy?

Given that Mr. West has raised many of these issues in his announcement, perhaps Mr. West should address these now rather than calling on everyone to wait a month for some answers.

Ron Johnson, 11 December 2006