Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
May 2016
Hello All,
I can’t believe that May is already here. Hopefully the warm days will return and stay
this time. In April we held our annual Elections and Fun night and have new executive
members joining our ranks.
We are saying good bye to Stephanie Storer who has been a Social Director for the past
4 years. We are glad to have had her help on our committee for the past 4 years and are sad to see her leave.
Stephanie we wish you well and all the best with everything as you will soon welcome a new bundle of joy to
your family. We are also saying good bye to Gillian Reain who has been director for the past 2 years, we thank
you for all the time that you gave the chapter, and the effort you put forth. Many more thank you for changing
up the dinners at Golf’s the most.
We welcome Jaime Renner and Jennifer Mohr from Economical Insurance to our ranks as Secretary and
Director. We can’t wait to work closely with you in the coming years and seeing all of the grand ideas you bring
to the table.
Laura Potts has moved through the ranks of the executive and is completing her year as Past President. During
her tenure Laura has brought so many things to the executive and we thank her for all of her hard work. Laura
will be remaining on the executive as a Liaison informing us of the amazing things to come with the Provincial
Conference that is May 4 & 5, 2017.
The Annual Golf Tournament is June 23, 2016 and is now live on the website, if you have any questions or
concerns in relation to this event or you wish to donate or sponsor any part of it please do not hesitate to contact
me.
If you have any questions or concerns relating to our chapter at any time, please do not hesitate to contact me at
Sincerely,
Jennifer Brown
Economical Insurance
K-W OIAA President
This Month’s Cover K-W OIAA is honoured to host the 2017 Provincial Conference & Trade Show – May 4-6, 2017, at
the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Downtown Kitchener!
1
Jennifer Brown Ryan Potts
President Vice-President Economical Insurance ClaimsPro - Kitchener 519‐570‐8500 x 43375 519‐501‐2478 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Laura Potts Mark Potts
Past-President Treasurer Aviva Insurance ClaimsPro - Kitchener
519‐883‐7579 226‐750‐0087 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Carrie Keogh Stephen Tucker MA, CIP, CRM
Secretary Toronto Representative
Economical Insurance Economical Insurance Email: [email protected] 519‐570‐8500 X43281 Email: [email protected]
Gillian Reain, BA Leeann Darke
Director Director
Economical Insurance The Co-Operators 519‐570‐8500 X43283 519‐618‐1230 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Monika Bolejszo Stephanie Storer
Social Director Social Director Samis + Company Xpera Investigations 1‐844‐SAMISKW ext 110 519‐884‐6352 X233
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Cyndy Craig Daniel Strigberger
Out of Town Liaison Web Director Arch Insurance Canada Ltd Samis & Company
647‐293‐5436 416‐365‐0000 x127 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Manish Patel Bulletin Director Larrek Investigations 519‐576‐3010 Email: [email protected]
If you have any questions, concerns or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
any of the above committee members. 2
President’s Message Page 1
2015-2016 K-W OIAA Executive Page 2
Schedule of Events Page 4
Social Chit Chat Page 5
Toronto Delegate Report Page 6
K-W OIAA John McHugh Memorial
Golf Classic – Information Page Page 7
Miller Thomson: Court of Appeal Takes
Expansive Approach to Definition of “Accident”
In Caughy Decision Pages 11-13
Samis + Company: Get Ready for More
“Professional” Service Providers Pages 17-18
Relectronic Remech: Lightning Claims –
Feel Like You Bought the Farm? Pages 22-24
MEA Forensic: Digital Witnesses – Impartial
& Increasingly Prevalent Pages 27-30
2016 Election & Fun Night Photos Pages 34-35
Advertisers’ Index Page 36
Visit our website at www.k-w-oiaa.ca 3
May 26, 2016 – Accident Benefits/Bodily Injury Accounting Topic: Carrie Keogh & Gillian Reain.
Fact or Fiction – The Importance of a Solid Investigation
Insurance claims, whether property or personal injury, often require a team investigation. Investigations begin with work of the adjuster and continue with the work of various service providers they engage to assist. Many parties can carry essential portions of the workload required to determine the legitimacy of a claim made. The key to the successful resolution of a claim is to ensure your position is grounded in the facts – which can only be obtained through a solid investigation. This topic will be discussed considering the stories behind real claims.
Gary Phelps is a partner with Davis Martindale Accountants and specializes in Insurance Claims and Litigation.
June 23, 2016 - Golf Tournament- Ariss Valley Golf & Country Club: Jen Brown
& Ryan Potts *All events occur at Golfs Steakhouse: 598 Lancaster St W, Kitchener, ON N2K 1M3, unless otherwise noted.
**Please note that topics are subject to change**
4
What is all the talk about Drones?
According to The Guardian (Oct 7, 2015) and
Canadian Security Magazine (Oct 12, 2015): “A team
of British technology firms has developed a “death
ray” for drones that can knock an unmanned aerial
vehicle out of the sky by turning it off in midair up to a mile away.”
There is no doubt that Drones are a low risk means of gathering intel and can be effective for
the purposes of long term observation at a low cost. So why are the British so “anti-drone”?
Well, according to the article, “In July [2015], a drone dropped heroin, marijuana and tobacco
into a prison recreation yard.” The article also refers to issues with “airport safety and the
ongoing trouble with curious drone photographers”. Other notable problems identified with
drones today include prying into government security, hanging about political campaigns,
photographing sensitive materials and events, as well as general mischief and criminal activity.
“Anti-drone 'death ray' can blast vehicles out of the sky from a mile away”
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/07/drone-death-ray-device-liteye-auds
The use of Drones for criminal and mischievous activity is increasing elsewhere in Europe and
North America as well, not just in Britain. In fact, the Dutch have employed a more old-
fashioned approach to seizing drones. Their solution?
According to the Globe and Mail (Feb 2, 2016), “Dutch police train eagles to snatch enemy
drones”. Using birds of prey to remove drones with trained eagles is both a practical and
effective concept, according to: “Sjoerd Hoogendoorn of “Guard from Above,” the company
working with police to develop the concept. [He says] the birds must be trained to recognize
the drones as prey. They are rewarded with a piece of meat after each successful foray. Their
scaly talons are strong and tough enough to seize most consumer-grade drones without injury
from the blades.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dutch-police-train-eagles-to-
snatch-enemy-drones/article28506178/
__________________________________________________________
Cheers,
Stephanie Storer
OIAA Social Director, 2015-16 National Account Manager, Xpera Risk Mitigation and Investigation
5
Toronto OIAA delegate elections were held on April 13th at the Grand Hotel in
Toronto. Congratulations to Carrie Evans and Matt Rienzo who were re-
elected as GTA delegates for the 2016 – 2018 term. The elections were held in
conjunction with a seminar entitled “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,
but if you try, sometimes you just might get… the LAT, new SABS and a
working definition of the two”. Kadey Schultz and Jason Frost of Shultz Frost
LLP engaged in a dynamic and animated discussion covering: the substantive and procedural
changes to SABS effective June 1, 2016; the anticipated LAT rules and the transition from
FSCO to LAT; and, the definition changes planned for catastrophic impairment and Minor
Injury Guidelines.
The OIAA Open Annual Golf Tournament will be taking place at Deer Creek Golf and Banquet
facility on Wednesday June 1, 2016. Registration opens on April 14th at 9:00 am. Sponsorship
enquiries can be directed to Jeff Edge at [email protected]. Benevolent proceeds will be
going to Alzheimer Society of Ontario.
You can register for OIAA events at oiaa.com. Also, follow us on twitter @OIAAOfficial or
find us on Facebook.
Upcoming events:
June 1, 2016
Golf tournament – Deer Creek, Ajax, ON
Regards,
Stephen Tucker Kitchener Waterloo OIAA Chapter, Toronto Delegate
6
The K-W OIAA is pleased to be hosting the John McHugh Memorial Golf Classic at Ariss Valley Golf and
Country Club. Please join us for a day of golf and fun among your industry friends. Every year the K-W
OIAA president chooses a charity to be the beneficiary of a generous donation that will greatly assist
that organization. This year the chosen charity is the Food Bank of Waterloo Region.
PLEASE REGISTER ONLINE: http://www.kw-oiaa.ca/. REGISTRATION DEADLINE IS FRIDAY JUNE 10, 2016.
Itinerary for Thursday June 23, 2016:
8:30am Registration Opens – Breakfast 10:00am Shot Gun Start 12:00pm Lunch on the turn 4:00pm Approximate time for dinner Players Golf Package
$155 HST inclusive per person, Fees include one round of 18 holes of golf, use of a cart, breakfast,
lunch and dinner. A team of 4 will be $620.00
Other Options: All Day Food Tickets: $50 (Breakfast, lunch and dinner) Dinner Only Tickets: $35 Sponsorship A generous donation will be made to the Food Bank of Waterloo Region from all hole sponsorships. Hole Sponsorship (2 types) is available for $225 A prize hole (longest drive/ closest to the pin) requires
sponsors to bring both a male and female prize in addition to sponsoring the hole. A non-prize hole has
no additional requirements. **Please note: You are responsible for providing your own tent, table and
chairs.
Title Sponsorship is also available should you be interested: You may display your banner at this portion of the event should you sponsor these. Breakfast Sponsor- $500 Lunch Sponsor- $1000 Door Prizes are also a welcomed and are drawn for at the dinner. If you are donating a door prize please advise Jennifer Brown ([email protected]) or simply bring it with you with a business card attached to it.
Questions? Please contact Jennifer Brown ([email protected]) or by phone 519-635-3678
7
8
9
10
Court of Appeal Takes Expansive Approach to Definition of “Accident” In Caughy Decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Caughy v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company 2016 ONCA 226
seems to have expanded the definition of “accident,” for the purposes of statutory accident benefits, to include
a trip and fall incident.
Recall the definition of “accident” in the Statutory Acident Benefits Schedule- Effective September 1, 2010
(“Schedule”) is “an incident in which the use or operation directly causes an impairment or directly causes
damage to prescription eyeware, denture, hear aid, prosthesis or other medical or dental device.
The unfortunate Mr. Caughy suffered what turned out to be devastating spinal cord injuries as a result of what
could have been a rather innocuous event: while playing tag with his children at a campground, he tripped and
fell on a motorcycle parked near his trailer. Mr. Caughy had originally parked his trailer close to another
camper, leaving a sort of walkway between the trailers. Unbeknownst to him, the motorcyclist had parked the
motorcycle in the darkened walkway during the evening hours. Mr. Caughy (who had been drinking a
“considerable” amount of alcohol) fell head first into the trailer, suffering serious spinal cord injury. One
wonders if the resulting decisions illustrate the adage that hard cases make bad law.
At the lower court stage, the presiding judge, Justice Nightingale found this scenario constituted an “accident.”
Justice Nightingale noted that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the 1995 decision Amos vs ICBC, under
differently worded legislation, established a two-fold test:
1. Did the accident result from ordinary and well known uses to which automobiles are put (the “Purpose
Test”)
2. and, was the relationship casual or merely fortuitous or incidental? (the “Causation Test”)
Justice Nightingale then noted that the Ontario legislation was amended in 1996 by eliminating the phrase
“directly or indirectly” and limiting the definition to impairments caused “directly” by use or operation of a
vehicle. In various Ontario Court of Appeal decisions (subsequent to Amos), such as Greenhalgh vs ING
Halifax 2004 CanLII 21045 (ON CA), the test was refined such that the second branch, the Causation Test,
requires consideration of whether, even if the “use or operation” of the vehicle was “a cause” of the injury, was
there an intervening act which cannot be said to be “part of the ordinary course of things”. Another
consideration is that of dominant feature.
Authored by:
Nicholaus de Koning Partner, Waterloo
519.593.3212
11
Justice Nightingale reasoned that the “Purpose Test” was met because the parking of the motorcycle (albeit in
a walkway intended for pedestrians) was an ordinary use to which vehicles are put. It appeared the motorcycle
had been parked there temporarily. It had not been abandoned nor was there any evidence it was inoperable.
Most vehicles are parked most of the time.
Justice Nightingale gave more attention to the Causation Test. He accepted that the “direct” causation
requirement is more stringent than that under the old “direct or indirect” legislation. He observed the Court of
Appeal’s reasoning in cases such as Greenhalgh that “it is not enough that an automobile was somehow
involved in the incident giving rise to the injury” and that “it is not enough to show that the automobile was the
mere location of an injury inflicted by a tortfeasor.” After articulating this, Justice Nightingale reasoned the
Causation Test was met because the parking of the motorcycle was the dominant feature of the incident and it
was not ancillary. The fact that Mr. Caughy had been drinking alcohol and running in a dark area were not
“intervening events” sufficient to break the chain of causation.
On appeal, Economical restricted its argument to the Purpose Test. It did not challenge the finding that the
Causation Test has been met. Economical’s main argument was that the Purpose Test requires that there be
some active use. Economical argued that since the motorcycle was parked and its operator apparently not
close by, it had been abandoned. An analogy to a tree trunk was drawn. The Court rejected this argument,
stating first of all, there was no evidence the motorcycle was “abandoned” (as opposed to being parked for a
few hours) and secondly, there is no active use component in the Purpose Test. Rather, the issue is whether
the incident arose from the “ordinary and well-known activities” to which vehicles are put. Parking a vehicle is
a well-known activity associated with a vehicle. The Court noted that “use” is an important part of the analysis
under the Causation Test- but again, the appeal was not framed in relation to that.
Read in a superficial way, the Court of Appeal’s decision suggests that the Purpose Test is just a gate keeping
device to rule out “aberrant” uses of a vehicle such as using a vehicle as a diving platform or to prop up a shed
(as mentioned in Vytlingam vs Citadel, a Supreme Court decision referred to by the Court of Appeal). On that
point, it is difficult to see anyone disagreeing with the Court’s observation that parking a vehicle is an ordinary
activity in the sense that any vehicle must be parked at some point. But if the Purpose Test is just a simple
screen to rule out “aberrant uses” then it doesn’t serve much purpose, as almost any incident involving a
vehicle will pass the test other than very obvious aberrant uses (such as using a car as a diving platform,
although some Arbitrators may beg to differ). Additionally, the argument (although unsuccessful in this case)
that a vehicle is parked is evidence of “lack of use” and “lack of operation” has some strength.
The Court of Appeal may cause confusion for those trying to understand the boundary between the Purpose
Test and the Causation Test. Moreover, whether one is considering the Purpose Test or the Causation Test,
the Court of Appeal’s decision represents a departure from previous decisions, which do, in fact, at least imply
an “active use” element in the overall analysis. Not least of these is the earlier decision of Justice Laskin of the
Court of Appeal in Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group [2002] O.J. No. 3135. That case involved a motorist who
was seriously injured in a drive by shooting. Justice Laskin agreed with the lower court judge that the direct
cause of his injuries was gunfire, not use or operation of a vehicle.
In Chisholm, Plaintiff counsel argued that the relevant consideration was “but for,” since “but for” being in his
car, Mr. Chisholm would not have been shot. But Justice Laskin noted that “but for” is merely an exclusionary
device. If the “but for” test is not met, then the injury would have happened regardless and causation is not
established. If the “but for” test is met, then the use of the vehicle is “a factual cause” of the injury. But legally,
direct causation requires more than that. Justice Laskin used the analogy of a row of dominoes in relation to
direct causation: “one thinks of something knocking over the first in a row of blocks, after which the rest falls
down without the assistance of any other act.” Justice Laskin also approved a definition from Black’s Law
Dictionary as follows: “the active, efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a
result without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source.”
12
Accordingly, Mr. Chisholm’s use of a vehicle was “a” factual cause of his injury, but it was not the “direct cause”
from a legal standpoint. By analogy, the motorcycle over which Mr. Caughy tripped was “a” cause of his injury,
but it is questionable whether it should be a “direct cause” to the requisite legal degree. If a vehicle is parked
for several hours, such that it basically constitutes an obstacle to pedestrians, can it really be said to be an
“active and efficient cause” that “sets in motion a train of events?”
Ultimately, one passage from Chisholm has particular resonance in the Caughy decision. “The 1996 Schedule
reflects a government policy decision. The government decided to circumscribe the insurance industry’s
liability to pay no-fault benefits by holding it responsible only for injuries directly caused by the use or operation
of a car. Like almost any statutory standard, the direct causation requirement will, at the margins, produce
hard cases, perhaps even sympathetic cases and seemingly arbitrary results.”
Nicholaus de Koning articled with Miller Thomson LLP, and then joined the firm as an associate immediately following his call to the bar in 2003. His litigation practice has an emphasis on the defence of first and third party claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.
www.millerthomson.com
Follow us on:
Vancouver Calgary Edmonton Regina Saskatoon London
Kitchener-Waterloo Guelph Toronto Markham Montreal
13
14
15
16
Get Ready for More “Professional” Service Providers
Weston Powell | 416.365.0000 | [email protected]
In Henry v Gore the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that an “economic loss” did not need to be commensurate to the Form 1 amount. This meant that if a non‐professional service provider, perhaps the claimant’s roommate, missed one day of work and consequently incurred a loss of $100, that service provider would be entitled to the full amount in the Form 1, potentially thousands of dollars.
Recognizing the absurdity of this, the Government of Ontario released O Reg 347/13, which amended the SABS such that the amount of attendant care payable for non‐professional service providers is limited to the economic loss sustained by that service provider. Using the example above of a roommate missing one day of work and incurring a $100 loss, that non‐professional service provider would now only be entitled to her $100 loss and not the amount shown on the Form 1.
In Davis v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, the Superior Court determined that this change would not be applied retroactively. This means that, for accidents that occurred before February 1, 2014 (when O Reg 347/13 came into force), the Gore analysis still applies and non‐professional service providers may claim the full amount on the Form 1, provided that they can prove that they have sustained some economic loss.
For claims involving non‐professional service providers, the changes brought about by O Reg 347/13 will, in many cases, considerably lower the amount of attendant care payable. As such, I anticipate that we will see an increase in the number of non‐professional service providers claiming that, in fact, they provided their services as “professionals.” For example, a claimant may attach to their Expenses Claim Form a copy of their roommate’s decade‐old diploma indicating that he or she once completed an Orderly program.
When this happens, we need to be mindful that certification or education is not what is demanded of the SABS. The requirements are set out in paragraph 4 of subsection 7(3) of the SABS, which reads:
…If a person who provided attendant care services (the “attendant care provider”) to or for the insured person did not do so in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which the attendant care provider would ordinarily have been engaged for remuneration, but for the accident, the amount of the attendant care benefit payable in respect of that attendant care shall not exceed the amount of the economic loss sustained by the attendant care provider during the period while, and as a direct result of, providing the attendant care. [Emphasis added]
The section is clear. It makes no mention of credentials or qualifications. Rather, it specifies that, in order for attendant care benefits not to be capped at the economic loss of the provider, the provider
17
must be providing the services in the course of what they would ordinarily have been engaged in for remuneration.
In other words, it is not sufficient that a service provider have experience or qualifications involving the provision of care. What matters is what they would normally have been doing for money at the time. A certificate, diploma, or degree is only proof that someone is qualified to provide a service, not proof that they were in fact providing it at the requisite time.
In cases where it appears that non‐professional service providers are attempting to pass themselves off as professionals, insurers should consider asking for pay stubs, employment letters, or other proof that the provider was actually doing that work for remuneration at or around the time in question. If the provider is unable or unwilling to do so, it may well be that the provider should be treated as a non‐professional and that the attendant care payable be limited to the economic loss sustained by the provider.
Weston Powell is a lawyer at Samis+Company’s Toronto Office. www.samislaw.com | @samislaw | #OntInsLaw
Toronto | Waterloo
18
19
PROUD TO BE CANADIAN OWNED AND OPERATED FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT WWW.WINMAR.CA
GUELPH KITCHENER/ ORANGEVILLE STRATFORD
Darrin Drake CAMBRIDGE Darrin Drake Chris Craigan
519-826-000 Peter Douwes 519-940-8400 519-273-0000
519-895-0000
20
21
Lightning Claims - feel like you bought the farm? By Greg Gummerson at Relectronic-Remech Inc.
We have investigated thousands of lightning strike claims since it began servicing
the insurance industry in 1992. Throughout this period, we have witnessed damages
to a myriad of equipment and control systems including commercial and residential
losses.
By and large commercial claims involving control systems are the most expensive to
settle. There are many reasons for this however before diving into the whys, hows,
and wherefores of these losses, a brief explanation of lightning should be
addressed.
Lightning is an atmospheric discharge of electricity, which typically occurs during thunderstorms, and
sometimes during volcanic eruptions or dust storms. In the atmospheric electrical discharge, a leader from
a bolt of lightning can travel at speeds of 60lm/second and can reach temperatures approaching 30,000°C
(54,000°F) - hot enough to fuse soil or sand into glass channels. There are over 16 million lightning storms
every year worldwide. Of these strikes, the resulting damages are generally of two classifications: from
direct lightning strikes and from indirect lighting strikes.
A direct lighting strike is normally the type that people most often try to protect themselves against. A
direct lighting strike can generate surges up to and beyond 6kV. A direct lighting strike places an electrical
surge on the mains of a power utility and causes damage to equipment that is connected to the grid.
Battery back-ups and line conditioners are used to protect equipment from damages due to a direct strike.
Surge protectors that plug into a receptacle are also devices used to protect against this type of strikes
and the resulting damages.
In our experience, indirect strikes are more frequently the cause of loss. Indirect strikes can put surges
on utility lines, but more often put surges on data communication lines as well. When a lightning strikes, a
substantial transfer of stored electrical energy is discharged. When this flow of electrical current occurs,
an associated magnetic field is created. When the discharge of electrical energy is complete, the resulting
magnetic field collapses. The laws of electromagnetic principles show that when a magnetic field is
created and collapsed, a conductor located within the magnetic field has an associated induced current on
it. (This is the same principle that an automobiles’ charging system uses to keep the vehicles battery fully
charged). Following a lightning strike, the induced current searches for a path to ground, usually
damaging electronic components along the way.
There are three different recognized means by which these surges are induced: resistive coupling,
inductive coupling and capacitive coupling.
Resistive Coupling occurs when lightning strikes within close proximity to a facility. This results in a
massive rise in ground voltage. The rise in ground voltage affects electrical grounds (buried rods or buried
pipe work) and can be conducted back to a building and to its electrical systems. Additionally, any
communications cabling connecting the affected building to a second building provide a path for surges,
allowing them to damage equipment in the second building as well.
22
Inductive Coupling occurs when a lighting strike hits a conductor forming part of the structural protective
system of a building or a structure in close proximity of the building. This generates a large
electromagnetic pulse of energy that can be picked up by nearby cables, and cause damage as well.
Capacitive Coupling occurs when lighting directly hits the electrical utility grid. High voltage protection
devices that are in place on the power grid dissipate much of the energy caused by the strike, but a large
portion still travels along the lines. The high frequency nature of this surge can couple the low-voltage and
high-voltage windings in local transformers at facilities and damage equipment that the transformers
normally feed.
So why do adjusters, in many cases after a lightning, strike feel like they have bought the farm? There are
many reasons for this and in most cases it comes down to the manufacturers support for the device, the
type of interconnection between devices in a system, and the relatively low protection that communication
devices inherently have available.
For illustration purposes, let us assume that a claim has occurred at a farm and the insured indicates that
the feeding system and phones have been damaged. The feeding system provides feed to livestock and it
does this through a computer that monitors the many factors including the weight of the livestock and the
calculated age of the livestock. The computer has to be able to mix food recipes, weigh the livestock, and
distribute the food to the proper eating areas. The manufacturer of this system has spent a great deal of
resources to develop the software to perform these tasks in an accurate manner. All the electronics
involved in the system have to be able to communicate with the computer so that the feeding operation
can be adjusted appropriately. This means that load cells inside scales must weigh feeds, water, livestock
itself, as well as the feeding bins. Load cells are devices that change in electrical resistance based on the
force applied to them. They typically operate in the millivolt range (less than one volt) and have their own
power distribution, shared from the communications lines back to the computer. However, there is no easy
means to connect a load cell directly to a computer, so an interface circuit board is put in line to convert
the normal load cell operating voltage to a number that can be communicated to the computer in a
meaningful state. Then the computer can evaluate all of the weights required and start producing a
feeding recipe to be distributed.
In most cases there is more than one feeding area so a network of piping is built throughout the building to
accommodate the distribution of feed to each area. Normally, this is controlled through a series of valves
in the piping network that open and close and each valve has its own unique ID or address so the
computer can access it independently of other valves. Just like the load cells, these valves need to talk to
the computer so again more interface circuitry is required to allow communications with the computer.
For example, feeding area “A” requires 10kg of feed and feeding area “B” requires 15kg. The valves would
close so that the feed in the piping would be dispensed to area “A”, then the load cell at “A” would report
back once the 10kg has been reached and the computer would then close off the valves to “A” and then
open valves to area “B” and so on. Also throughout this process the computer has to control a drive
system that pushes the feed through the piping, meaning more circuitry to drive the food delivery system.
As you can see there are many aspects of the system that are depended on to perform the operations
correctly. Independently each section of the system is relatively simple; therefore, the communication lines
required are generally simple as well. The most common form of communication lines installed is serial
communications RS232 or RS242. Serial communications allow many devices to be chained together on
one line, but each of these devices, be it a valve control or load cell control, and have a unique address.
From a lightning claim perspective this complicates things two-fold: first, because the devices on
communication lines that are shared more than one device is at risk of being damaged and second,
because the labour involved to troubleshooting this communications circuit can become expensive,
23
depending on the number of devices there are to test on a particular circuit. Serial communications
depend on at least three conductors: one for sending data, one for receiving data, and a common or
ground cable. Serial communications generally operate in the 0 V to 12 V range and this is a low voltage
cabling that is highly susceptible to induced currents. Furthermore, the electrical grounding of each device
is tied along the communications line which exposes all the devices, even if only one was subjected to a
surge.
So what about the computer itself? We have seen many of these damaged and generally they are little
different than personal computers, the exception being in some cases they may have an interface card to
allow communications. The software they run is normally proprietary and available from a single source
and has a relatively expensive replacement cost. To add to this expense, the manufacturer of the system
may insist on supplying the computer itself including the software. This makes supporting the system
easier, because all of their manufacturers’ customers will have relatively the same configuration.
Finally, what if the system fails to operate properly? Almost all feeding systems of this nature are tied into
a phone system or alarm panel to allow the owner to be notified of a problem. So an additional set of
communication lines have been added to the mix. We have seen cases where phone lines had induced
charges from a lightning strike that has travelled through the alarm system dialer to the computer, and
then out to the feeding system itself.
The electronics involved are not overly sophisticated; in fact, they use technologies that were introduced
into the market over thirty years ago. However, when combined, a sophisticated network of switches and
sensors is created, all controlled by a computer running specialized software. The production volume of
these systems is generally low, driving up the cost to supply the specific market.
In our experience of claims ranging from farms to factory industrial control systems, the cost can be high, but can be controlled if repair and service vendors are available and co-operative. If service vendors understand the process from an insurance point of view, they will try to repair and services the system cost-effectively. Furthermore, a third party’s involvement can aid lightning repair issues where warranties are still in place on equipment. Example: a repair vendor may be indicating that the entire installation is suspect, due to a lightning strike, and apprehensive about making a repair. Allowing and paying for a recertification process can alleviate the vendors and suppliers concerns. By allowing a grace period for functional equipment that may have suffered marginal damages, but are not complete failures, may also assist in warranty matters.
When the repairs are made and the invoices are submitted, it’s not uncommon to think that you just have “bought the farm.” This is where a consultant should be able to assist in the settlement process, by reviewing repair invoices to confirm that the invoices submitted are directly related to the loss. If any upgrades have been supplied, these would be noted and valued. Having a consultant involved as early as possible is beneficial, as the steps to a complete repair will be clearer for both the insurer and the repair vendor. A consultant may also be able to provide input on possible alternative systems and repairs for obsolete equipment. The coverage can be better confirmed to the insured, and repair vendors will know that they are to be accountable.
Greg Gummerson is an electronic engineering specialist and senior technical advisor at RELECTRONIC-REMECHInc., a loss recovery company serving the insurance industry since 1992, with offices in Mississauga and Waterloo. Greg can be reached at 1-800-465-9473, or visit our website at
www.relectronic-remech.ca for additional information.
24
25
26
Digital Witnesses - Impartial and Increasingly Prevalent
By Thomas Flynn MASc, PEng of MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists.
It seems paradoxical that a world pre-occupied with privacy is busy buying
devices that record, store and upload personal data for the entire world to see.
In addition to these personal data devices, many other products we use daily
have built-in recording devices that store data.
As forensic experts, we can use information from these built-in and personal
devices to improve our analyses. However, we find that many of our clients
are not aware of the large number of data sources available or the amount of
data available within each device.
In this article, we present many of the common data sources we use and the types of data that
can be obtained from each. We also discuss the volatility of the data sources, and the need to
retrieve and maintain the data as soon as possible.
27
Built-In Data Sources
Motor vehicles have been recording vehicle crash data for the last two decades using Event
Data Recorders, however limited access to the data and simple ignorance of its existence have
limited its effective use for resolving lawsuits. Recent US legislation [1] has made recorded crash
data available for all new vehicles sold in the US (which means most vehicles in Canada too),
and now virtually every vehicle is equipped with a black box that can be downloaded following a
collision.
Event data recorders (EDRs), or black boxes as they are more commonly known, are not
dedicated standalone units like on airplanes, but part of a car's airbag control module. The
airbag control module decides when a car's airbags and seatbelt pre-tensioners should be
deployed, and the EDR just listens in and stores specific data from just before and during a
crash.
Black boxes were first downloadable in General Motors vehicles and provided limited data such
as crash severity and seatbelt use. Now, many cars provide more detailed crash data as well as
between 2 and 25 seconds of pre-crash data about speed, steering, braking, throttle,
temperature, and even if features like anti-lock brakes and traction control were engaged. All of
these data are useful in recreating the events leading up to a collision. However, data recorded
by the EDR is volatile, meaning it will be overwritten by the next collision. It is therefore all the
more important that the black boxes are downloaded as soon as possible following a collision.
EDR data not only helps reconstruct a collision, it can also help an injury biomechanics analysis.
Many modern vehicles show little or no damage during low- to moderate-speed rear-end
collisions, and traditional reconstruction techniques can only estimate the maximum speed
change a vehicle experienced in one of these types of crashes. EDR data from one or both of
the involved vehicles can determine the actual collision severity and allow a biomechanical
engineer to better assess the risk of specific injuries.
While crash data is available in every new vehicle sold in North America, that's not the only place
the vehicle itself may be recording information. Many modern vehicles can connect to cell
phones in order to make phone calls, send texts, find routes or play music. The vehicle systems
that allow for this connectivity are referred to as Infotainment Systems. The units can store a
surprising amount of data, including the names and dates of every device ever connected to that
vehicle, and even the GPS location of where the device was when it connected to the vehicle.
Many infotainment systems store the contact lists from all connected phones and some store
text messages and the times of calls and text messages. The type and amount of data that can
be retrieved varies with the make, model and trim level of a car, the navigation system in the
vehicle, and the make and model of the connected phone.
The most interesting data available for collision reconstruction is GPS data, which may show the
position of a vehicle in the time leading up to a collision. If the resolution of the GPS data is high
enough, it may even be capable of establish the route and approximate vehicle speed leading up
to the collision.
The data available in infotainment units can be difficult to obtain, as many vehicles cannot yet be
downloaded. Furthermore, if the vehicle is not equipped with navigation, there is often no
accessible data anyway. The data contained within infotainment units may also be considered
private, which can lead to questions regarding who has permission to access and use the data.
28
Finally, if the infotainment unit was not in use (i.e. - the navigation system wasn't active, or no
phone was connected), there may be no data. However, as vehicles become more and more
connected, the frequency of useful data in infotainment systems will increase and become
another important source of data built right into the vehicle.
Personal Data Sources
Unlike EDRs and infotainment systems, on-board video cameras, sometimes called dash cams,
are frequently installed by the owner after the vehicle has been sold. These video cameras can
record both exterior and interior views of the vehicle and occupants before, during, and after the
collision. These videos can establish everything from vehicle speeds to seatbelt use to how and
when an occupant was ejected in a rollover crash. Even a poor video can sometimes answer
questions that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to answer in some cases.
Onboard cameras are most common on public buses where up to a dozen cameras are used to
capture both the inside and outside of the bus. Using the location, settings and properties of
each camera, an investigator can map the path and speed of the bus, other vehicles, and people
inside and outside the bus. External surveillance cameras, such as those in and around stores
and gas stations, may also provide useful recordings of the collisions or pedestrian slip and fall
incidents.
The most prevalent source of potential data is the cell phone. Most people have a cell phone on
them at all times, and will frequently turn to them following an accident to call 911. The phone
records can indicate the exact time that call was placed. For collisions at dusk, the exact time of
a crash can confirm the ambient light levels and help establish whether a driver should have
seen a pedestrian or cyclist before impact. These records may also establish if a driver was on
the phone and potentially distracted at the time of the collision.
Modern smart phones have also placed a high-resolution camera in nearly every pocket.
Photographs are crucial to properly understanding and investigating a collision, so any
photographs from a collision site should be obtained and preserved. These should be requested
from the vehicle occupants, witnesses, and even tow truck drivers and first responders, some of
whom take the first—and possibly most important—photographs of the scene.
Cell phones are also slowly replacing our next source of data, the dedicated GPS unit, however
these units remain relatively common for heavy truck drivers, snowmobile riders, and cyclists.
The data from a GPS unit consists of the exact position of the unit at precise, but often coarse,
time intervals. While this data is not useful for analyzing the crash, it can be used to accurately
estimate speed and location leading up to a crash.
Not all GPS units record trip data, but some units, such as the common Garmin units, record
route data as long as the unit has power. In other words, even if the GPS unit is not directing the
user to a location, it will still record the route as long as it is turned on.
Many cyclists now choose bicycle computers equipped with GPS. These small computers
have varying levels of complexity, with basic ones typically storing only duration, distance,
average speed, and maximum speed, but the more advanced computers having GPS data
and physiological data such as heart rate and power output. This physiological data can be
used to assess the cyclists' level of exertion or perhaps fatigue leading up to a collision.
Many cyclists also like to upload their data to internet sites like Strava or MapMyRide. This
29
provides information from prior rides on the same route which can be examined to establish a
rider's normal behaviour patterns. Many riders have public profiles, and sometimes the data from
the actual incident is uploaded and available online for all, including the opposing legal team, to
see.
Like cyclists, many joggers and runners wear watches that record GPS and heart rate data.
More recently, the proliferation of wearable devices like the Apple Watch and the Fitbit exercise
band means that increasing amounts of personal data are being recorded for a wider range of
population. Like the cycling and running data, this technology can provide both location and
physiological data that can inform a collision reconstruction. For instance, if a pedestrian
sustains a head injury and cannot remember the collision, the details of their pre-impact motion
could be based on a potentially biased driver's recollection. The information in their watch or
exercise band therefore may be crucial evidence because the difference between walking and
running can swing liability for the collision from one party to the other.
Data Volatility
One thing all of these data sources have in common is their volatility. Although some
smartphone apps upload their data automatically to a website, most of these devices require
someone to download the data after a collision or event has occurred. Most of them
can and will delete or overwrite the data during subsequent use. If the data is not collected
shortly after a collision, the chance of losing the data or not being able to relate the data to the
incident increases.
In special circumstances, the data can also be affected by the collision or event itself. For
example, if a vehicle loses electrical power during a collision event, it can interrupt the EDR as
data is being recorded. In this case, it's possible to have a report that contains data that are both
related and unrelated to the incident. These data require careful interpretation, but can often still
provide important information.
Summary
There are a growing number of data sources available to forensic experts. It is important that
these potential data sources are identified and addressed early so that the data can be retrieved
and/or maintained before it disappears. Because the more data available to forensic experts, the
better we can assist you in understanding what actually happened to your client.
References
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Part 563, Event Data Recorders.
Thomas Flynn, MSc, PEng is a Project Engineer at MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists in the
Collision Reconstruction Group.
30
31
32
33
34
35
Access Restoration Services 8
Arcon Engineering 14
Carpet Department Inside Back Cover
Carstar 14
Caskanette Udall Outside Back Cover
CRDN 15
CSN Regency 32
Davis Martindale Advisory Service Inc Inside Front Cover
First General Services 16
First Response Restoration Inside Back Cover
Golden Triangle Restoration 26
Ground Force 15
Highland DKI Outside Back Cover
Hrycay Consulting Engineers 16
KPMG 31
Larrek Investigations 10
Lipskie Appraisal Services 14
MD&D 14
Miller Thomson LLP 25
Origin & Cause Inc 9
Pario 26
Parkway Auto Recyclers 32
Paul Davis Systems Inside Front Cover
PwC Inside Back Cover
Relectronic-Remech 15
Restoration 1 25
Samis + Company 19
Strone Restorations 31
Winmar 20
Xpera Risk Mitigation & Investigation 21
36
