who else owns this loss course
DESCRIPTION
When an accident occurs, investigators must determine if a third party, such as a product designer or contractor, may be held liable due to a safety related oversight. This slideshow gives an overview of several real-world investigations and helps viewers evaluate the case for subrogation in each incident.TRANSCRIPT
Who else owns this loss?How to Pursue or Defend Subrogation Claims for Property
Damage Losses
Presented By: Jeffery H. Warren Ph.D., P.E., CSP
Mannequin Reenactment
Safetythroughdesign®
Case Study W6105
Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion and Fire
Aristotle said in 350 BC
Accidents are
without cause.
Injury or Fatality
Incident
Cause
• “The fire occurred when a spark or molten globule fell into the area from the welding operation being conducted on the precipitator above the tank.”
• “The subsequent explosion was the vapors igniting and flashing back inside the vapor filled head space of the tank.”
Conclusion
• “It is apparent that safeguards to prevent the shower of sparks and molten globules of metal from reaching the flammable vapors in the area around the No. 6 fuel oil day tank were not adequate.”
The Insurance Company of the Welder
Now
In another city on another day
Most Property Damage Losses:
• are predictable• are preventable
• All have A CAUSE!• Most have MULTIPLE CAUSES!
Be Sure To Look at ALL theSwitches!
NFPA 921
Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigation 2011 Edition
NFPA 921 Significant features of a Fire or Explosion
• Cause of • The fire or explosion• Damage to property resulting from the incident• Bodily injury or loss of life• Degree to which human fault contributed to any one or more of the causal
issues
Cause No. 1
• Fire or explosion
T
Fire Tetrahedron
HeatFuel
Oxidizing Agent
Uninhibited chemical
chain reactions
Cause No. 2
• Damage to Property resulting from the incident
Cause No. 3
• Of Bodily Injury or Loss of Life
Cause No. 4
• Degree to which Human Fault contributed to Cause No. 1, No. 2 or No.3
Several Factors May Be Involved
• Fire starts when a blanket ignited by incandescent lamp in a closet• Factors
• Lamp hanging down too close to the shelf• Putting combustibles too close to the lamp• Leaving the lamp on while not using the closet
• Cause of fire or explosion?Ignition sourceFuel SourceCircumstances or human
actions that caused them to come together
• Cause of spread of fire?• Cause of explosion?• Is there a design defect?
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• No. 6 Fuel Oil• Material Safety Data Sheet Review• Hazards Identification Section
• OSHA/NFPA Combustible liquid; however flammable vapors may accumulate in tank headspace.
• Flash Point: 150F• Autoignition:765F
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• Fire and Explosion Hazards (MSDS)– When heated to flash point and mixed with air and exposed
to an ignition source, flammable vapors can burn in the open or explode in confined spaces.
– Flammable vapor production at ambient temperatures in the open is anticipated to be minimal unless oil is heated above it’s flashpoint.
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• Fire and Explosion Hazards (MSDS)• Light hydrocarbons can buildup in the headspace
of tanks below the flashpoint of the oil, presenting a flammability or explosion hazard.
• Tank headspaces should be regarded as potentially flammable, since the fuel’s flashpoint cannot be regarded as a reliable indicator of the potential flammability in tank headspaces.
Case Study W6105 Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• Standards Research• API Publication 2009 Safe Welding and Cutting Practices in
Refineries, Gas Plants, and Petrochemical Plants, Fifth Edition, August 1988
• 1.1 Scope– This publication provides guidelines for safe practices when
welding or cutting is performed in refineries, gas plants, or petroleum plants
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• API 2009 (cont’d)• 2.2 Work Location
– The work location must be gas free, and precautions should be taken to prevent ignition of flammable or combustible materials. Before welding or cutting is performed above or near oily surfaces, the area should be flushed with water, steam cleaned, or covered with clean dirt or sand, or other precautions should be taken
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• API 2009 (cont’d)
• 3.1 Permit RequirementsExcept in areas specifically designated as safe, such as welding
shops, a permit should be obtained before starting any work that can involve a source of ignition.
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• API 2009 (cont’d)
• Section 4-Testing for Flammable VaporsA competent person using an appropriate combustible-gas
indicator should perform tests for flammable vapor concentrations before hot work is started.
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• API 2009 (cont’d)
• 5.4 Work on Outside Surfaces… Hot work should not be performed on one vessel or piece of
equipment in a plant unit while other parts of the same unit are in operation unless precautions have been taken to prevent the release of flammable liquids and vapors into the area.
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion• API 2009 (cont’d)
• 2.4 Flammable Liquid and Vapor… Operators should notify workers engaged in hot work of
actual or imminent releases of flammables or other combustibles, such as those from relief valves,so that hot work can be stopped immediately.
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
Case Study W6105Analysis of No. 6 Fuel Oil Tank Explosion
• The Hot Work Permit Asks:
4. There are no combustible fibers, dusts, vapors, gases or liquids in the area. Tanks and equipment previously containing such materials have been purged. The absence of such vapors has been verified by a combustible gas detection instrument.
INVOLVEMENT Matrix
Involvement or problem Tenant Owner
Property Manager
Sprinkler Maintenance
Fire Origin and CauseSprinkler didn't workNot enough water
Primary Action - Party involved caused the problem
Secondary Action - Party involved knew or should have known about the problem and taken action to resolve the problem
Involved Parties
INVOLVEMENT Matrix
• http://warrenforensics.com.s158756.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Investigation-Saves-Money-on-Tank-Explosion-Claim2.pdf
• Which switch caused the loss?• Who is responsible for the loss?• Is there a subrogation case?
•You analyze the loss with your group•Answer the questions•Create a Responsibility Matrix•We’ll discuss•You have 15 minutes
Be Sure To Look at ALL theSwitches!
Moat was not tested to check for the presence of explosive gas mixtures
Plant Welding Contractor
Moat contained No. 6 fuel oil and wood chips, both of which are flammable
No. 6 fuel oil vapors vented from day tank into surrounding moat
A hot work permit was issued without all of the proper safeguarding measures being performed
Safeguarding inadequate to prevent sparks and molten metal from reaching flammable vapors
A hot work permit was issued while an adjacent tank was being ventilated
Welders were not notified of the release of flammable vapors by the plant
NFPA 921Analysis of Electric Motor Failing to run on High Speed
Specs
The horsepower ratings are for guidance and do not limit the equipment size. When electrically driven equipment furnished under other sections of these Specifications differs from the contemplated design, the Contractor shall be responsible for the necessary adjustments to the wiring, disconnect devices and branch circuit protection to accommodate the equipment installed.”
•You analyze the loss with your group•Answer the questions•Create a Responsibility Matrix•We’ll discuss•You have 15 minutes
Blower motor hp & speeds revised in specs but not in drawings before contract
Motor control center change order issued with no accompanying revision to drawings
Specs written as to encourage unauthorized design modifications of drawings
NIC Electric notified contractor of wire changes. No revisions to drawings received
Blower motors installed do not match the drawings nor specifications
No. & size of conduit & wire in drawings were inadequate for blower motors installed
Electrical subcontractor decided to attempt to redesign the wire & conduit himself
Submittals were not prepared prior to performance of the work
Wire & conduit not called for in the drawings was installed
Engineer General Contractor
Electrical Subcontractor
CASE STUDY W4170
Analysis of Fire in Carpet Padding Facility
Safetythroughdesign®
Stop
Is risktolerable?
Assess risk
Other hazards?
Can hazardbe eliminated?
Can hazardbe guarded?
Provide warnings,
procedures, and training
Operatethe machine
More tasks?
Is risktolerable?
Is there a hazard?
Identifytask
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NoYes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Risk Assessment Decision Matrix
Probability of occurrence Catastrophic Critical Marginal NegligibleFrequentProbableOccasionalRemoteImprobable
Severity of Consequence
The Safety Hierarchy
is stable
Eliminate the hazard
Safeguard the Hazard
Warn about
the Hazard
Proceduresand
training
Upside Downis Unstable
Eliminate the hazard
Safeguard the Hazard
Warn about the Hazard
Procedures and training
Cause classifications
• Incendiary• Natural• Accidental• Undetermined
Incendiary Fire Cause
• Cause is a deliberate human action in which the person knows the fire should not be set
Natural Fire Cause
• Cause is without deliberate human intervention– Lightning– Earthquake– Wind
Accidental Fire Cause
• Cause is not a deliberate human act to ignite or spread the fire into an area where the fire should not be.
Undetermined Fire Cause
• Whenever the cause can not be determined
•You analyze the loss with your group•Answer the questions•Create a Responsibility Matrix•We’ll discuss•You have 15 minutes
Origin in Filter House
Sprinkler didn’t work
Sprinkler not inspected
Valves not locked open
Filter not cleaned
Filter in building
Not enough water
Supply pond drained
Isolation valves closed
Tenant #1 Owner Property Manager
Sprinkler Maintenance
Subrogation
• Theories of Liability• Products Liability Case
Theories of Liability
• Strict Liability• Negligence• Warranty
To Have a Products Liability Case
• Plaintiff must prove the following:• The product was defective when used• The defect existed in the product when it was manufactured• The defect was the proximate cause of the injury to the
plaintiff• The specific use of the product that caused the damage was
reasonably foreseeable
Types of Defects
• Design defect• Manufacturing defect• Marketing defect
Fire Hydrant Case
In Summary
During this session you heard :
• Cause first• Responsibility second• An Involvement Matrix may be helpful • Engineers can help you
Involvement Matrix
Involved Parties
Involvement or problem Tenant OwnerProperty Manager
Sprinkler Maintenance
Fire Origin and Cause
Sprinkler didn't work
Not enough water
Primary Action - Party involved caused the problem
Secondary Action - Party involved knew or should have known about the problem and taken action to resolve the problem
Most Property Damage Losses:
• are predictable• are preventable• All have A CAUSE!• Most have MULTIPLE CAUSES!
Be Sure To Look at ALL theSwitches!
Who has the first question?