May 27th, 2010
This past Saturday in Denver, CO exhibited the most wind filled day I have witnessed in at least 3 years. We had consistent 30+mph winds and regular gusts by the minute averaging 50+mph. Although this wasn’t quite an abnormal condition for the region is certainly wasn’t expected and it wreaked havoc across the the city and suburbs, if not for the dirt and dust factor alone. This type of wind is a common cause and origin for insurance claims and wind related adjusting of insurance claims.
I couldn’t help but notice this sign swaying in the wind
Sign at risk for falling and causing damages
while in the parking lot at my at a local grocer, which happens to be a national chain based out of Austin, TX. We were certainly surprised to find out that it had been this way for several hours before management put in a call for service, which was primarily based on our having notified them that it wasn’t the sign we were concerned about, but rather the liability risk of it falling on someone or something in the intersection over which it was hanging. Certainly, aside from the direct result of the sign falling was a risk for the potential of cause and effect with a traffic accident.
Hopefully this national chain fixed up their sign before they became a victim of circumstance.
Always remember to consider loose items that can blow around or blind someone in the wind. Wind damages account for a large percentage of insurance claim dollars per year, but one liability claim from something like that can account for a much more significant loss.
Peak Claims handles wind damage losses in Colorado and other areas. Contact my office for more information.
Phillip Crimaldi is the Director of Operations for Peak Claims and his office is at the Peak Claims Central Office in Denver, Colorado.
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.
Massive winds and waves pummel M.V. Horizon Hunter
72 hour storm gale produces heavy winds and 26+ foot waves
As originally reported by KITV news (Honolulu) and also reported by The Honolulu Advertiser, along with several other news sources via Google, the MV Horizon Hunter sustained high seas which resulted in a cargo (container) loss. The Hunter is a container ship that arrived in Honolulu Harbor yesterday with at least twelve inland marine containers hanging in a rather “stormy” fashion across her deck. The ship is owned and managed by Horizon Lines shipping.
MV Horizon Hunter Bow View & Cargo Damages
Cargo Containers spill over side of Marine Vessel
The vessel was in transit from Los Angeles, CA to Honolulu, HI but no reports clearly identified her destination, with mentions of the Horizon Lines CHX (California-Hawaii Express Service) or Midweek Express Service (MWX) routes. According to Phillip A. Crimaldi, Vice President of Cargo Survey and Investigation Operations at Peak Claims – Denver, “the vessel would have likely been in route to Guam as shown on the Horizon Lines schedule posted through their site.”
Reefer and standard marine containers from SafMarine, NYK, Hanjin, and others could be seen on deck from photos taken by Honolulu Advertiser reporter/photographer, Richard Ambo.
Damages cargo containers
According to several reports the vessel had lost at least 6 containers to the sea that fell overboard during the transit. It is not known if the crew was forced to jettison the cargo although, if high seas were the cause of the damage, it would have been unlikely the crew was about the deck releasing cargo.
Currently only a few damaged containers remain on the vessel at this time; several have already been removed. The question among the independent adjusting and claim community remains, who will get to survey all of this damage?
Marine Cargo Container and Content Damages
Mr. Crimaldi indicated, “It is possible that several containers of cargo were damaged, but if exterior damage to the containers is not evident during this port stop in Honolulu, then those damages will likely not be known until devanning takes place at the nearest port to the consignee or scheduled drop”. Mr. Crimaldi also noted that “surveyors will likely see consistent claims come in depending on where these containers end up” and that “it appears the vessel was headed to Guam, then Saipan and Rota/Tinian with stops stateside starting in Houston after, but that is several weeks away. It’s important to remember that although some containers sustained evident damage, the ship owners have every right and interest to continue their route as scheduled to keep costs to a minimum and profits at a maximum, particularly when there was no evident damage to the ship itself. For these reasons, surveyors will likely handle all evident damage surveys port-side, even though the consignee could be elsewhere in the world. It’s important to note that photos depict damages to reefer containers to which damages can far exceed those normally found in static containers.”
Heavily wrecked containers from high seas
Based on an evident 20 containers that could end up as total losses it’s possible damages will exceed one million dollars, depending on the contents of the containers.
According to other reports there were no crew injuries and the ship will continue, most likely on schedule.
Peak Claims is a professional insurance claim services company specializing in Cargo Damage Surveys, Independent Adjusting and Loss Recovery Investigations. Phillip A. Crimaldi is the Director of Operations and is an experienced cargo damage surveyor and recovery investigator who has handled multi-million dollar losses of damaged and break-bulk and container goods for multiple carriers. Visit Peak Claims on the web at http://www.peakclaims.com
