800 Million Knauf Settlement, What Specific Percentage Qualifies ? What Report RULES ? Who Decides ?

Feb. 15, 2012 - PRLog -- As with any large Settlement involving payments tied to a specific quantity, specific Manufacturer, or an amount of  installed material, requires a very detailed means and method or protocol to establish and confirm these specific facts or quantities, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Knauf Global Settlement Guidelines administered by Moss Construction and Benchmark Inspections have several Homeowners questioning not only the information contained in these "pre-demo" Reports, but also the obvious errors and misinformation provided by these Reports, that is directly tied to dollars or payments, Homeowners are entitled or eligible to receive.

Homeowners who have lived with the effects of Chinese drywall for the last several years and filed claims against the Knauf Global Settlement or Knauf Pilot Program, after a Knauf third party site specific review and (Benchmark) Report, are told they DO NOT have "Tainted" Knauf Boards (KPT) or the specific percentage of Knauf Brand Boards is 35%, 45%, 55% or some number, based on the Knauf "approved protocol" or means and method.

This may all sound good and maybe even correct in some instances, but the specific Knauf means, method, or protocol, is based on a random sampling of walls, NOT all walls of the structure, and the random sampling and Report is performed and issued prior to a full blown demo.

The Knauf based means, method, or protocol is further complicated by the obvious and unknown location and/or lack of markings that clearly defines "Chinese" or "Tainted Corrosive" drywall that can only be found or exposed 100% by performing an EPO per Judge Fallon's guidelines.

Judge Fallon's EPO (Evidence Protection Order or Evidence Preservation Order) confirms and validates specific quantities of not only Knauf brand drywall, but EVERY brand, type, and location.

Example: http://www.constructionguru.com/images/foreman-pdfs/epo_l...

Basically the Knauf / Moss / Benchmark protocol or means and method is "pre-demo", a random sampling (not every wall), and after close review, fails to provide accurate information, while Judge Fallon's EPO provides very specific and accurate information required by lawyers, attorneys, and the court system, not only establishing correct and accurate quantities, brand, and type, but also very specific locations of ALL brands, and types of drywall in a specific structure.

What has developed ???

Obviously a double standard ... Knauf Settlement Guidelines requires very specific photographic documentation to collect or potentially be eligible to collect IF you DO NOT use Moss, but if you agree and accept the Knauf / Moss repair proposal / protocol, the pre-demo facts or (Benchmark) Report rules.

The Global Knauf Settlement skirts the EPO requirement or guidelines, further questioning the most basic information Consumers, Homeowners, Lawyers, and Attorneys require to make informed and educated decisions and provide Consumers and Homeowners legal guidance.

Does my structure qualify ???
What number or quantity of Knauf or KPT drywall boards are installed ???
What percentage of KPT drywall boards compared to known Chinese drywall boards ???
When do Homeowners receive an EPO Document per Judge Fallon's guidelines ???

Another major and simple reason Homeowners need an EPO ...

Future litigation concerning Health, personal property, and future settlements with other "Chinese" manufacturers that will require evidence and documentation ... simply stated ... an EPO.

Basically, an $800 Million Settlement Fund is a great start and a potential answer to some Homeowners prayers, but if you can not collect, qualify, or meet guidelines and if and when you do, the amount received is a small fraction of actual cost to correct, has the Consumer or Homeowner partial corrective compensation solved the problem ???

Homeowners should also pay very close attention concerning "warranties or guarantees" provided or eluded too by the Knauf Global Settlement and clearly understand, all work performed fails to meet established, known, and available Environmental Impairment Insurance Policy Guidelines.

Foreman and Associates as a Consumer Advocate, asks the hard questions, looks for answers, and continues to educate, inform, and empower our "Tainted Corrosive" or "Chinese" drywall clients, Consumers, and Homeowners.

Please call with any and all questions - 941-955-8111

Michael S. Foreman
President
Foreman and Associates, Inc.
Forensic Construction Consultants
http://www.ConstructionGuru.com

# # #

Foreman and Associates, knowledge and expertise concerning Tainted Corrosive Drywall (TCDW) or Chinese Drywall (CDW) leads the Industry with

First 100% Accurate NDE Diagnostic Protocol (January 2009)
First Environmental Insurance backed abatement and treatment Protocol
First to publish and share NDE Analysis Protocol (January 2010)
First to promote and endorse SNiPER® Treatment System
First to acknowledge and endorse personal property SNiPER® Treatment System
First Cost Effective abatement Protocol requiring ALL electrical wiring / fixtures, HVAC equipment / duct work, drywall, cabinets, interior doors / hardware, carpet and pad, plumbing fixtures, and SNiPER® Treatment of specific construction components.

Our firms Treatment Protocol for Tainted Corrosive Drywall or commonly called Chinese Drywall is documented as - 100% successful.

Our SNiPER® Treatment affords Clients a TCDW Environmental Insurance Policy, covering any future out-gassing or environmental issues