Courage Pools, Inc.

Review: As you know, our reinforced concrete pool shell, as designed by [redacted] and Associates and constructed by Courage Pools in 2006, has developed a large vertical crack and is no longer structurally sound nor able to function as a swimming pool. We requested repair under Courage Pools' limited structural warranty, which states that "Courage Pools warrants that the gunite or concrete swimming pool shell will remain structurally sound for as long as you own your pool. Structurally sound is defined as maintaining the structural integrity of the swimming pool so as to withstand all normal loads and stresses as anticipated by our approved engineering plans." Courage Pools requested evaluation of the existing swimming pool by the engineer of record, [redacted], of [redacted] and Associates, and he concluded that soil settlement has led to the crack in the swimming pool shell. As a result, Courage Pools has indicated that they are not responsible to honor the warranty because the warranty does not cover damages caused by earth or fill ground movement. We have reviewed the engineer's report, the original pool plans, and the existing site conditions, have consulted with a number of structural, geotechnical, and legal specialists, and have made the following determinations:

The crack in the pool shell has developed because the design did not consider the pool layout in relation to the site topography. There is not an adequate soil embankment along

the back side of the poof to resist the horizontal pressure exerted on the pool structural system by the water within the pool. The specifications contained in General Note IS on the pool construction plans require that "if the pool is constructed on or near a slope, [the] top of bond beam should be a minimum of 5 feet away from [the] edge of slope". The pool is in fact constructed adjacent to a fill slope and there are several locations, including that where the crack is located, that are less than 5 feet from the top of the adjacent slope. The lack of a resisting lateral soil pressure providing support along the back side of the pool shell is further evidenced by the fact that the crack in the pool shell is vertical. A vertical crack is indicative of a flexural crack resulting from the inadequacy of the embankment to provide resisting lateral pressure to counteract the lateral water pressure. Settlement cracks are manifested by diagonal patterns, which are not exhibited in the current condition. Because the pool was placed in close proximity to a slope, the back side of the pool should have been built as a free standing pool wall that would not have retied upon the resistive lateral embankment pressures along the backside the poof. This is considered a defect in the design of the pool.

The crack occurred at an angle point in the poof. Angle points, particularly those pointing in the same outward direction as the lateral water pressures, are geometric force concentration areas and therefore must be adequately reinforced to resist out of-plane forces. Structural engineering practice dictates that a special detail be provided for locations such as these to show the additional reinforcement and concrete form shape needed at the angle point to mitigate the concrete stress to acceptable levels prescribed by the building codes. No such detail is provided in the plans and therefore it is concluded that this area was not properly reinforced. This is considered a defect in the design of the pool. If necessary, we are prepared to expose and document the inadequate reinforcing in this area during the demolition and repair work.

There are currently boulders embedded in the wall of the pool shelf and bond beam at the location of the angle point and vertical crack. The horizontal reinforcing steel should be continuous across the angle point in order to adequately resist out-of-plane forces. The embedment of the boulders into the wall of the poof shell and bond beam prevents this continuous reinforcement and therefore contributed to the development of the crack in the pool shell. This is considered a defect in the design of the pool.

It is not possible to evaluate the compaction of soil to the specificity required by the engineer by visual means alone. Soil testing is required to confirm compaction. Therefore,

although the Courage Pools contract attempts to abdicate responsibility for soil conditions, Courage Pools has a fiduciary responsibility to verify that the site conditions meet the specifications of the design plans, particularly in the case of fill conditions, prior to construction. If Courage Poofs does not include the verification of soil conditions in their scope of work for poof construction, they are required to obtain this information from the owner prior to start of construction. This information was neither requested nor required of us by Courage Pools and therefore Courage Pools failed to verify that the engineer's specifications related to soil conditions were met prior to constructing the poof and deck improvements. This is considered negligence on the part of the contractor.

. The Courage Pools contract asserts that Courage Pools is not a soils expert and further requires the owner to warrant against expansive soil conditions. However, [redacted] of

Courage Poofs instructed us that we reside in an area of expansive soils and were therefore required to purchase, at additional cost, the upgraded steel schedule required to resist

expansive soils. By making assertions about the soil condition of our property, Courage Pools represented themselves as knowledgeable about soils, which is in direct conflict with the

pool contract. This is considered misrepresentation/fraud on the part of the contractor.

Desired Settlement: In summary, we have determined that the crack in our pool shell is directly related to the deficient design of our pool and the settlement of our deck is the result of the contractor's failure to verify that construction specifications were met. As a result, we require that Courage Pools and Neil 0. Anderson and Associates undertake any and all action appropriate to repair our swimming pool and deck immediately, to our satisfaction, and at their expense, or remove the pool/deck improvements and restore the land to its original condition. If remediation efforts are not commenced on or before May 15th, we will commence legal proceedings against Courage Pools and Neil 0. Anderson and Associates to recover the expenses necessary to conduct the repairs ourselves as well as all legal expenses.

Business

Response:

[redacted] met with the [redacted] on Saturday morning, May 3rd to discuss their concerns. Courage Pools and the [redacted] are in agreement on a course of action.

Courage Pools, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. " Dear Revdex.com- Some time ago, I filed a complaint against our pool company. They have since resolved the problem and have asked that I let the Revdex.com know so that this can be reflected in their file. How do I go about handling this? I see a place on the website where a complaint can be filed, but not where a complaint can be shown as resolved...thank you!