> Well, you are, at that point, taking shared liability on for that
> portion of the structure – this added buffer for the EOR is the
> whole point of this approach.
Not to split hairs, but one who offers an opinion on the validity of
some methodology isn't taking responsibility for the structure, only
vouching that the methodology is reasonable--that the approach is
prudent and demonstrably accords with good practice. Any opinion
should limit itself to the requirements for design, not a particular
embodiment which might be flawed for other reasons. That might not
keep you from being named in a suit, since plaintiff counsel is
trained to look for all the insurance policies they can find. But
done right, the opinion will be clear enough to a jury or the
plaintiff counsel so that it's not worth pursuing. Depending on how
big your policy is, of course. Large settlements tend to trump logic.
Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/members/chrisw/
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********