Projects and Clients

We don’t publicly talk about our clients. The reason we don’t is one of our founding principles. We have a fiduciary responsibility to our clients. That responsibility demands adherence to a strict confidentiality. A majority of our portfolio of work is either already in litigation or is destined to end up in mediation or litigation. Whether the claims are construction or large property loss insurance related, confidentiality is an expected and governing behavior that each of clients can expect.

 Although we don't talk about specifics regarding customers or clients, we can catalog a sampling of our work portfolio that addresses some, but not all, of the depth of knowledge and experience of ARISTON. The sampling paints a picture of the types of losses, claims and litigation in ARISTON's history.

STUDENT HOUSING

$ 41M+ repair of 1,527 bed off campus student housing complex. The project, damaged from prolonged exposure to bulk water intrusion and water vapor intrusion, suffered from a large construction defect density.

$40M+ selective demolition for discovery, remediation & repair of 2,500+ bed off campus student housing complex. The complex is one of the largest in the US. Buildings have been structurally compromised due to prolonged water intrusion and also by subterranean termites. Reconstruction phase recently completed and litigation is ongoing. Policy GL claims against prior management company and affiliated parties are still pending. (Owner)

CONDOMINIUM

HURRICANE

$24.5M+ Hurricane claim for wind, water and mold damage following hurricane. Property is 17 story beach front structure built circa 1966. Our participation began two years following the event. Carrier paid approximately half of the insured's claim for damages. Differing IAQ protocols, written by the same CIH drove substantial claim reduction based on the differing scope of work and job requirements dictated by those differing protocols. Window deflection analysis of the more than 1,500 windows revealed that not a single window was out of tolerance by industry standards. Only 8 windows were actually "broken" during the "named storm".

Window claims for replacement by the PA and the ensuing water damage for those claims actually drew a negative correlation driving further reductions in the claim value. Since the ensuing water damage is contingent on the preceding window damage, it was shown that there was less than an 8% chance that the estimate by the PA, at least as far as window replacement, was credible.

Based on the complete building survey by unit, the testing of components and detailed review of all documents available, including the 900 page estimate, we concluded that of the $24.5 million dollar claim and the $10.3M already paid by the carrier, the remainder had no validity. In addition, the $10.3M already paid represented what we believed was $6.5M more than the actual damage represented.

Building history analysis and prior claims and prior litigation supported our opinions that the building had not been properly maintained in it's 35 year history. (Carrier's Counsel)

WATER DAMAGE DURING NEW CONSTRUCTION

$3M+water damage claim occurred during new construction of mid-rise condominium tower on the water on the west coast of Florida. The claim included drying services for just over $1.4M. The $3M did not include the additional BI claim made due the insureds claim it could not deliver condos on time due to the event therefore losing the sales on the condos.

Through our audit process, the $1.4M drying invoice was reduced to $650K based on evidence the drying contractor stayed 3 days beyond the date the building was dry, based on industry standards.

In addition, it was proved that the BI claim was invalid as the time to complete the condominiums completed following the event was shorter than the time to complete condominiums completed prior to the event. Even thought the contractor reallocated resources (drywall and painting) to repair the water damage, the upper floors proceeded as planned without delays. It was further shown that the delays that had occured were related to site work delays early on in the project. (Adjuster and counsel)

COMMERCIAL

STRUCTURAL FAILURE

$2.5M+ claim for structural repairs as a result of excessive rain. Building construction of CMU walls, steel bar joists on girder trusses on red iron steel on concrete slab. Tenant had relocated RTU without consulting engineer... placing the unit on bar joists not designed to accommodate the new dead load. The added weight caused deflection in the roof system between the high side of the roof and the roof drain system. Heavy rains caused water ponding in the already deflected roof. Subsequently, the point connections of the bar joists to the red iron broke and the roof system collapsed in two different locations. Contributing factors of poor storm drainage and poor detention pond maintenance were likely contributions to the collapse.

The roof failure severed two trunk lines for the fire sprinkler system. The collapse required replacement of sufficient number of heads to require retesting and certification of the entire system.

Claim was ulimately denied by the named carrier based on the lack of insurable insterest in the property. (National Tenant)

STRUCTURAL FAILURE

$5.5M+claim for structural repairs as a result of excessive rain. Building construction of tilt up panels, steel bar joists on girder trusses all resting on embedded anchors and plate steel in concrete walls. Heavy rains caused ponding and the result was the failure of the anchors in the concrete tilt up which led to the girder failure which brought the bar joist system down with it when the failure moment was reached.

Engineering design failure was ultimately the cause.

The building housed over $100M in flight simulation equipment and it's support systems at the time of the failure. (Adjuster)

RESTAURANTS

Fire (Adjuster)

Several claims of less than $1M each and all were paid at policy limits. (Adjuster)

RESIDENTIAL

FIRE

$5.5m+claim by owner during construction. Residence was only 2 weeks from being occupied. Sub-sub contractor set fire to stored trim materials on the residence interior. HVAC systems were operative. Fire never reached flame stage and only smoldered. Home was being built on a cost plus contractors fee basis. A full audit of all information provided by the contractor validated the costs incurred to date. The owner had elected to carry the builders' risk insurance himself and had failed to adjust the limits as the cost of construction grew. The owner was under insured by $3M. The carrier paid the indemnity due the insured. The owner, based on the severity of the damage gutted the home to the CMU walls and began construction again. (Adjuster)

CONSTRUCTION DEFECT

$3.5M+claim for corrections required as a result of general contractor negligence during construction. Two architects were also named as co-defendants. The roof systems, flooring, doors, windows, water proofing were all incorrectly installed and not in compliance with the Construction Documents nor industry best practices. Electrical wiring, while code compliant, was deemed to have not have been installed according to contract. The GC's insurance carrier and the carrier for one of the architects settled. The remaining claim against the local architect went to trial with a jury award for the plaintiff. While the monetary award was small, the win against an architect for his failure to perform administration duties as well as follow what would be considered a sufficient "level of care" was significant. (Owner's Counsel)

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION

Claim against General Contractor for punitive damages due to contractor's negligence during demolition. The claim was ultimately settled for a fraction of the punitive damages being sought. A full property inspection did reveal that the damages alleged by the plaintiff were pre-existing. The decision of the carrier to settle was made without consultation of ARISTON or other parties engaged. (Carrier's Counsel)

These represent a sampling of projects only and does not reflect the full portfolio of work of ARISTON, LLC.

The information in parentheses following the loss description represents the party which engage services.