GBA Releases Five More Case Histories: 41-45

GBA Releases Five More Case Histories: 41-45


GBA Case Histories are being used by our members for loss prevention discussions in support of professional development and mentoring. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeating mistakes of the past which is why GBA case histories are so valuable, and why GBA is updating them all, while adding new ones, too. Five more case histories have been re-issued.

CASE HISTORY NO. 41 (download)

When two geotechnical engineering firms failed to collaborate on a Southern California apartment project, the result turned a $3,500 fee into a $1 million uninsured loss.

CASE HISTORY NO. 42 (download)

A Member-Firm, working on a new highway alignment in     mountainous

terrain performed a geotechnical-engineering study, report with criteria and recommendations, and provide on-call consultation to support design and construction of a roadway subdrainage system and related structures. Read how drought conditions and a belligerent landowner impacted this project.

CASE HISTORY NO. 43 (download)

A Member Firm did a favor for one of its major clients and took on a project with inadequate oversight. Problems occurred during dewatering and, when the subcontractor was dismissed, both the member and its client were sued.

CASE HISTORY NO. 44 (download)

An environmental consultant performed a hurried Phase I ESA for a developer and found no serious problems. A chlorinated solvent was discovered later, when the consultant performed a more rigorous study for a prospective purchaser. The developer initiated a suit against the owners of two suspected contamination sources. Both owners were clients of the environmental consultant.

CASE HISTORY NO. 45 (download)

An environmental consultant was retained to perform a Phase II ESA. When laboratory tests indicated unacceptable levels of a contaminant, the prospective purchaser reneged and demanded a return of its deposit. The developer refused, and a lawsuit ensued. In discovery, the parties learned that the site was not contaminated after all. Both the developer and prospective purchaser then sued the environmental consultant, who wound up paying $300,000, less $185,000 contributed by the laboratory.


GBA Case Histories are FREE to all Members. Access all GBA’s Case Histories HERE