Fire, Explosion & Live Ammunition-Fire Loss in Denver

Explosion, then a fuel fire…

Appurtenant Structure - Garage Fuel Fire Damage

Continuing with our tradition of receiving  assignments that made the morning news, we received this interesting  file which was reported by the several news stations before it was ever reported to the insurer.

The insured had a vintage 1986 Maserati Bi-Turbo, a Smart Car, and two late model Honda Goldwing Trike Motorcycles, among other collectible items stored in her garage.  As a preventative maintenance technique the owner stated that she normally starts the care and lets it idle for several minutes on a bi-weekly basis to help keep the engine lubricated and in working order.  On the eve of this particular accident she went out and started the motor up, then went back inside with her grandchild.  Shortly after a large explosion occured that “shook the house” and the insured came out to find her garage going up in flames.

Mrs. Insured was keen to safety and took her grandchild across the street to a neighbor’s house where she then called 911.  The Denver Fire Department‘s Station 16 crew arrived 7 minutes and 15 seconds later according to their report.  Unfortunately that’s a long time for a garage full of automobiles to be on fire.  The fire had burned so hot that it melted the rear of the house, which was less than 30 feet away.  The garage was badly damaged, but surprisingly, not a total loss because a large part was constructed from masonry brick and block which were fairly heat resistant, as opposed to a wooden frame which is not.

In our scene investigation, it appeared that the fire originated at or near the Maserati and there was a hole approximately 2.5 feet in diameter on the roof of the garage, as shown:

In this case it was only necessary to substantiate the items and costs included in our estimate of recorded damages because the carrier hired a special cause and origin specialist.  The auto was insured through a different insurance carrier than the structural coverage, therefore a good investigator may find evidence proving the Masterati was the cause which would then open up recovery through subrogation.

The garage roof, windows, doors, electric and HVAC were clearly a total loss as shown in our photos.  Interestingly the policy coverage for this file was exceedingly shy of the amount necessary to repair the entire structure.   One cause for having made so many news headlines was that a fireman was struck my a bullet as heat set off ammunition that was stored in the garage.  No injuries were report as there was no significant velocity behind the round.

This type of claim would normally be a good candidate for an errors and omissions suit naming the insurance agent who sold the policy because the agent failed to update or review policy limits for several years.  It’s unfortunate that Underwriting had failed to recognize this condition.  However, in this case the agent happened to be directly related to the insured and she was not interested in pursuing such a claim against her sibling/agent.

Roof Joist at Entry - Fuel Fire Damage Adjusting

With all of the news crews documenting the story, we were shocked that a public adjuster hadn’t been involved in the file before our arrival.  Our file was turned around in less than 72 hours and the insured received policy limits of $26,000.00 for Appurtenant Structure Coverage (B) the same week as we received the file.

Phillip Crimaldi handles fire and explosion damage insurance claim adjustments and repair estimates for Peak Claims throughout the nation.

This claim was featured on:  Denver Post, KJCT News 8 (ABC – Grand Junction, CO) through the Associated Press wire, along with local Denver Fox affiliate KDVR, and local NBC affiliate KUSA 9News.

Automobile Recalls: Insurance Claim Investigation & Adjusting

Recently, there have been millions of recalls at General Motors and Toyota involving millions of automobiles.  If you’re an insurance claim professional there should be a list of questions running through your mind about what this means should you end up handling a claim involving one of these vehicles.  This article reviews basic information on how to handle conditions from a first-party loss documentation perspective.  The vehicles affected are:

• 2010 Toyota Prius – Brakes
• 2007-2010 Pontiac G5 – Steering
• 2005-2010 Chevrolet Cobalt – Steering
• 2005-2006 Pontiac Pursuit (Canada) – Steering
• 2005-2006 Pontiac G4 (Mexico) – Steering

If you are assigned or end up with an auto liability file that involves one of these vehicle there are a few factors involved you might want to consider before proceeding.  First, make sure you have taken the time to protect your liability after acceptance of the file.

The most important factor to remember when dealing with an auto recall, or any claim, is to remain impartial.  Prevent you or your adjusting staff from jumping to conclusions about a brake, steering or other mechanical failure by emphasizing the amount of money or damages are not an issue – only the preservation of fact is important.  Insurance liability claims involving auto recalls should be regarded as a very thin sheet of ice because often times claim professionals jump to conclusions about a particular part failing and contributing that as the primary cause of the accident.  Part failure from auto-recall be the primary origin but that is not always the case.  Even if it was the contributing factor, it’s important to documents other circumstances you would normally document in an auto collision such as road conditions, weather conditions and other physically identifiably characteristics surrounding the loss such as tire tread depth.

The truth is that many loss investigators don’t know what their client does behind closed doors.  Insurers are becoming keen to indemnifying their insured then going back to recover their loss silently.  This means that they are relying on all of the little elements you may have come across at an accident scene involving one of these automobiles.

From an insurer’s standpoint, these manufacturers are already eating dirt with the massive expense of a recall. A self-insured entity such as an auto manufacturer is going to spend some serious dollars denying claims because each claim is evidence against them in a class action – the last thing they want and the first thing every hot dog attorney in America has their mind on.  Protect your liability by documenting all of the facts in an auto recall case, not just the ones that seem obvious or evident.

Another viewpoint are the claims that may spawn as a result of a failed part.  For example, a recalled vehicle driven by Mary is traveling on a highway at or near the speed limit and loses control because the expected resistance in a power steering mechanism became greater in the midst of a lane change, according to that driver.  A nearby driver, Joe, anticipates the recalled vehicle traveling into his lane and makes a fair judgment to move out of the way, thereby causing another accident.  A witness, Kim, has an account of the entire event.  It’s true that the Joe caused the accident but his insurer has a right to attempt recovery of their loss (subrogate) because the Mary essentially created a tort in negligence when failing to control her vehicle.  The recovery odds are slim given these circumstances but they are possible – particularly if the drivers were carrying super-loads of cargo and caused damages exceeding $100,000.00.  Since there was no collision between the Mary and Joe, however, Joe’s insurance would likely subrogate the manufacturer directly – providing all the details were in place.

You can help your client by providing these important details that are relevant to both the accident and the recall – not just some of them. The sum of dealing with auto-recalls is that the evidence often require a specialized and elevated level of care that most adjusting firms overlook.  Don’t let you or your subrogation department be stuck in the office late because your independent adjuster failed to give you all of the details.  Peak Claims thrives on reporting pertinent details that our competition fails to document – help your subrogation or legal team of attorneys achieve their maximum potential by contacting Peak for your investigative needs today.

Inland Marine Cargo Survey – Wind Mill Nacelle

Wind farms produce “green” energy by using nature’s natural resources to produce what would otherwise be caused by a high form of pollution in a coal fired power source.  Peak Claims’  inland marine cargo surveyor, Phillip Crimaldi, has a range of experience in dealing with green energy insurance claims and inland marine damage surveys.  Here is Mr. Crimaldi’s take on this loss:

Way up in north central Colorado near the Town of Grover, close to where the southern Wyoming and Nebraska state lines meet and near the Pawnee National Grassland, there is a growing wind farm known as The Northern Colorado Wind Facility.  A wind farm is a large group of wind mills that produce electricity.

This particular wind farm has consistent winds of 20+mph throughout the day with frequent gusts up to around 40+mph.  Clearly an easy choice for X-Cel energy to partner up with NextEra for a 152-Megawatt wind farm costing nearly $300 million and producing enough electricity to light up 38,000 homes.

I’m not so sure about is how much of that $300 million went to insurance premiums, but based on this file it’s a safe bet to have been a high figure as these units are worth quite a bit of money.  The wind speed and risk of accidents is pretty high.  When I attended this survey there were warning signs about high winds at the entry and it was so windy that my truck door was nearly torn off and at least 3 documents went flying so far, so fast, that it was impossible to get them.  I only carry documents in digital form now.

Mitsubishi Power of Tokyo, Japan manufactured the nacelles for most of this farm and this one was no exception.   This unit had traveled nearly half way around the world from the Port of Tokyo to the Port of San Diego and made it all but two miles from the drop site.

For this file we only acted as cargo surveyors and not in any capacity for the tractor- trailer outfit or ground carrier insurance.  The primary reason for our involvement was to assess the extent of the damages to the freight, determine the cause and origin of those damages,  and address any potential right to subrogation under the terms of this inland marine floater.  We interviewed and obtained statements from the driver of the truck and workers who arrived at the scene.  Police reports and the bill of lading indicated the drop site was only two miles straight down the road so it became evident that minimal time passed between the accident and arrival of workers and Colorado State Patrol.

The driver of this cargo stated that another truck was approaching from the opposite direction and his story matched those of workers and the other truck driver.   When you’re out this far in the country the roads are dirt and become narrow; barely one and a half lanes with a width of about 15′.  The opposing truck was a 53′ van and as the smaller load, he should have yielded but failed to do so.  As a result, this inland marine cargo hauler pulled over on the berm and the driver supposedly hadn’t realized that his load dipped into the culvert, until it was too late.  The driver attempted to pull out of the culvert which is when the weight of the cargo load became excess for the 5th wheel hitch, shown here:

Since the load originated at the Port of San Diego we can trust that it was well secured because of the several hundred miles elapsed between the destination and origin cities.  Additionally it was noted in photos that the load itself did not break free from the trailer but rather the trailer hitch broke away from the truck  (shown right),  thus resulting in damages to this inland cargo risk. The unit was moved to the drop site approximately a day later as shown here:

Crane picking up nacelle for transfer

We consulted with engineers from the installing mechanical contractor and the manufacturer’s engineer.  The installing mechanical contractor’s engineer couldn’t make any determination about the unit specifically, except that it was (obviously) not fit for installation and the Mitsubishi’s engineer was overseas for the initial review (via photos and contact).  At this point there’s obviously a minimal question as to the likelihood of coverage although that is not for us to decide and a job for the Underwriters.  The damages were clearly so excessive that salvage was our only interest, but ultimately one for Mitsubishi to decide.  The decisions were left with our third party agent as to the disposition of salvage because a substantial amount of time passed before a qualified engineer could make a physical survey, and because parts would have to be removed completely and disassembled to make that determination.

Details about the opposing truck drivers insurance carrier, USDOT records and other pertinent information was obtained and forwarded in our report so that a subrogation investigation might address further recovery potential.  Peak Claims also has the ability to review these conditions ,however the Underwriters didn’t anticipate much of a recovery since their own driver was ultimately at fault and no comparative negligence could be derived from the evidence gathered on the scene.  The opposing truck didn’t come within 300 yards of this load which wouldn’t have made for a great comparative negligence case.  Overall our assistance in the matter was helpful because we identified all of the black and white evidence to that a determination for coverage could be made.

Phillip Crimaldi is the Director of Operations and inland marine cargo surveyor for Peak Claims in Colorado and the Mountain Time Zone.  Phillip has been an active cargo surveyor since 2002 and authors articles on the web about insurance claim surveys, adjusting and investigation.