| |
|
|
Case in Point |
|
When Should You Call On An Expert?
The decision concerning when to call in an expert on a claim usually
comes when it is patently obvious that some scientific or technical
problem is involved which either is beyond the scope or experience of
the claims person or requires additional support to sustain a decision
regarding a claim.
There may well be extenuating circumstances, questions about liability
when several parties are involved, or questions about the true extent
of the damage. Something may be amiss which is technically a
borderline call but may have a lot to do with the outcome of the
case.
The best course is to not take a chance. If there's a
question, or if you're unsure of what direction to take on a claim,
contact us.
The next decision concerning the use of an expert should be based upon
the size of the exposure. If it is a large claim, don't hesitate
to call even if the extent of the assignment may not be all that
clear. Usually you will save your company money in the long
run.
Timing is also very important. Try to call before some
well-intended opposition person or government agency attempts to "save
the evidence" by picking up and removing some vital part, or destroys
some information without any consideration of its relation to its
surroundings. Delays can cost more than just money, They can
jeopardize the outcome of the case.
Case In Point:
An investigator took a part off a car involved in an accident, and put
it away for safe keeping. The car was then salvaged. It
turned out the part saved had no relation to the problem that caused
the accident, so it was of no value to the case.
In another instance, we received a call to investigate an electric
fence which had injured a person. The attorney had picked up all
the transformers, etc., for safe keeping. The arrangement of
electrical connections which might have provided clues in the case was
thereby destroyed.
When Not To Use An Expert
When the exposure to loss does not justify the fees expected, it is
often better to attempt a settlement. "If the fees become a
determining factor, then you really don't need us."
Case In Point:
The report was sugar in the engine. Could we check the carbon on
the sidewalls of the cylinders to determine if this was true?
Yes, but the car was a 25 year old Volkswagen and the claim was
$350. Hardly worth the cost of the investigation.
Information Gathering
One of the most important points in the process of handling a claim is
the proper gathering of information. When the expert is called
in, have all pertinent data concerning the claim ready for
review.
The important thing is that your expert be able to launch the
investigation with all the data you have accumulated. If the
expert has to spend time re-developing some of the same basic data, it
can impede the progress of the case, and causes extra needless
costs.
One thing not required is a predetermination of the type of expert
needed on the case. After discussing the assignment with you,
we'll make the determination as to type of experts needed based on our
best judgement of the situation. Sometimes it takes several
members of our team to do the right job.
Case In Point:
We received a call at 4:00 p.m. for the immediate services of an
accident reconstructionist, who was to travel 130 miles one-way to a
neighboring town. A pick-up truck had been in an accident, and
was at a gas station. We were to establish who the driver was
immediately. The address was unknown, the vehicle ID was unknown,
there was no case number, and the claims person had not asked for a
police report. Quick response is important, but essential
information must be at hand before an investigation can be
launched.
Chain of Custody of Evidence
The gathering of evidence in any case is very important. Often
when an adjuster gets into a matter, there have already been police or
fire department people at the scene who have picked up material or
caused evidence to be stored in some form. It is vital to know
what this material is, where it is stored, who is in charge, and what
process is needed to view the evidence or obtain possession if need
be. We would need to see any drawings done or evidence collected
by other agencies or experts. Receipts should always be obtained
if there is any transfer of materials in order that the "chain of
custody" can clearly be established.
If it is necessary to store evidence, make arrangements in
advance. Frequently the length of time required for a case to
come to trial is appreciable, perhaps years. Safety of the
evidence is important. Storage costs can be an important
cost item.
Case In Point:
We were asked by the opposition to produce parts from a truck accident
for further testing. We had indeed investigated the accident 4
1/2 years previously; we had stored certain parts with the name of the
company involved in a bonded warehouse. The insurance company had
been paying storage charges all that time, but the attorney for the
company was not aware of this fact. We were able to find the
original warehouse receipt and the parts, thus avoiding a contempt
citation or worse.
Criminal Activity
If
there is the slightest suspicion of criminal activity discovered by the
expert, he will inform you and then call the appropriate law
enforcement agency. It may be that the agency will take over from
there, or it may be desirable for the expert and the agency to work
together. You may ask the expert to wait for the agency's report
before doing anything further. At any rate that will be your
decision.
Case In Point: Fire
officials in a small town where we were investigating an electrical
fire suspected arson. The officials arranged with the insurance
company for us to continue our investigation. We did.
The culprits immediately were caught and convicted, based on the
evidence the investigation provided.
Document Control
If
it appears that the matter at hand may include a large number of
documents (such as one case with 500 architectural drawings, 5,000
letters, and 55 subcontractors involved in the proceedings) some system
of control will be essential. This means identifying each
document and cross-indexing according to each subcontractor and/or by
subject. Any group of documents may then be recalled during court
proceedings, or by the attorney as needed during the
investigation. Anything lost or unavailable could cause
delays and added expense.
Case In Point:
A developer was sued for bad construction when a new office building
exhibited many deficiencies. The number of documents was
staggering. When the attorney tried to find some bit of
correspondence dealing with a subcontractor, it was virtually
impossible even though he had all the data in his
possession.
All documents pertaining to the
case were gathered up, given numbers, cross-indexed in every
conceivable way and fed into a computer. The attorney could then
search through it on his computer screen and gain quick access to any
information required. If the case documents had been filed
properly to begin with, the task of locating the correspondence would
have been much easier and less costly.
Tests, Laboratories & Testing
Performing
tests in accordance with accepted scientific standards can be a lengthy
and expensive process, although it may very well prove the specific
point needed to settle a claim favorably or win a case. By the
same token, not doing the work can be very expensive to your
company.
It may often be necessary to
actually reproduce the accident in a laboratory to find out the
complete story. Our experience ranges from biological testing to
reproducing car and bus accidents, not to mention fire experiments and
wind tunnel tests. The list of types of equipment needed for such
work is endless. Therefore Garrett Engineers, Inc. does
not attempt to own and maintain its own facilities. We maintain
relationships with a large number of scientific testing laboratories
due to the quantity and varied workload that comes before
us.
Case In Point: There had
been repeated fires (every 60 to 90 days), which were unexplainable in
a 20 story apartment building containing 180 senior citizen
families. The risks to the building and the people involved were
enormous. Garrett Engineers, Inc. chased down many blind alleys,
such as known arsonists, disgruntled employees, structural and
mechanical deficiencies, etc. We pinpointed the origin of the
fires to the small efficiency kitchen in each apartment, but that was
all.
Finally we built a mockup kitchen in
the laboratory from the architect's plans, and placed it in
operation. Over a weekend, the accident happened: there was a
fire. It seems that the under-the-counter-refrigerators were time
bombs just waiting to explode. Due to a design error, an
electrical connection was allowed to lie in the drip pan. When
the connection got wet, it caused arcing, which started the
fires. This evidence led to a rather large award against the
manufacturer of the refrigerators.
What Happens If The Case Goes To Court?
All
of the investigative activity we've been describing is aimed at one
ultimate goal: providing the best possible support should the case go
to trial. Seldom, once the facts are made clear, do cases
actually go that far. Usually they are settled out of
court. But the point is to be ready, and to provide the best
experts and the best factual evidence to assist your attorney.
That's
one reason it is so urgent to move quickly to impound evidence.
Once it's gone, it's hard to reconstruct, and cases can take months,
even years, to come to trial.
Exhibits may
also be very important in court. These may include photographic
blowups, models, videotapes, graphic displays, illustrations, material
samples, etc. The opposition will most assuredly use whatever
state-of-the-art tools it can to win the case. With a sizable
amount usually at stake, should your side do any less? A model
that effectively demonstrates a key point can be well worth the
cost.
Most importantly, the attorney needs
to know he is going in to court with the best possible expert
witnesses, who's credentials are impeccable (they certainly will be
challenged), who are "courtwise" enough to know the procedures and what
to expect from the opposition, and whose knowledge and testimony will
be acceptable by the court.
Case In Point:
An actress claimed that a hollow core door of a television studio
slammed shut, striking her head and causing brain damage. The
insurance company didn't believe the forces were great enough to cause
that kind of injury. The problem was how to demonstrate to a jury
that the forces involved were very small. We set up a similar
door in court, created a modest wind using fans, and let the door shut
on an egg, which remained whole. The jury concluded that the
individual may have suffered brain damage, but from other
causes.
Reducing Claim Costs
The
most common outcome of an investigation, assuming the question of
liability has been answered, is arrival at a settlement, which is much
less than the original amount claimed.
While
our assignment may be first and foremost to find out "What really
happened?" this frequently leads to the next question and subsequent
assignment: "How much will it cost to repair?"
These
may be separate or overlapping assignments. This understanding
should be clear at the onset. With the ultimate goal of reducing
costs, the second question may be just as important as the
first. Coming up with the "How much?" answer often requires
additional skills. For example, if a building is involved,
a general contractor experienced in pricing construction materials may
be needed.
Case In Point: A
large electronic scoreboard was damaged during installation. The
insurance company was asked to forward a check for $2.1 million to
replace the scoreboard. Garrett Engineers, Inc. was called in to
investigate the extent of the loss. Within 48 hours of the
accident a team of three experts was on a plane en route to the site:
an electronics engineer, a structural engineer, and an
investigator.
They determined that the
cause of the damage was due to crane operator error. Furthermore,
they determined that the scoreboard was repairable within the price
range of $400,000. It was subsequently repaired and installed, at
a savings of $1.7 million to the insurance company.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Quotes |
|
“Great Job again!” Jake P.
|
|
|
|
Cases 
