STEELE ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS

It went badly, but we didn't know how badly until design flaws started to show up during the first winter following occupancy. Deficiencies in the building were blamed on the various contractors, despite initial assurances by Steele that they would be on site to assure quality of product. In addition, they insisted on a non-standard clause in the contract for services that limited their liability to no more than the value of the contract. Thus, when corrections of deficiencies in design and construction were estimated at between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, we stood to recover from the architect no more than the $300,000 of the contract, which would be less than the cost of the legal proceedings to collect. Further, when deficiencies began to surface, the architect refused to participate in attempts to seek solutions outside the courts. In the end, Steele hid behind his legal wall, knowing that for us to pursue a claim against him would cost more than we stood to recover. Two separate outside architectural consultants found deficiencies in design and construction oversight. One concluded that the basic design, not matter how well executed, was not appropriate to the specifications called for by the building's owners for the uses planned. When confronted with questions of how to proceed with corrections, Steele refused futher input and said we would have to work through their lawyers.