FORENSIC INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR LIABILITY CLAIMS

EMR008

Speakers:• Bob Mazalin, Director of Risk Management, Tripp Lite

Corporation

• John Machnicki, Vice President and Director of the Risk Control Forensic Laboratory, Travelers Insurance Company

• 1,298,000 fires

• 3,275 deaths

• 15,775 injuries

• $ 9.8 billion in property damage

2014 U.S. Fire Statistics

Fire Loss in the United States During 2014; NFPA, Hylton J. G. Haynes 9/2015

Are you at fault?

5

Construction defect?

• Large value claims

• Complicated

• Require one or more experts

• More than one party may be responsible

• May have impact on brand and reputation

• May impact the bottom line

6

Common Threads

7

Good Science

VS.

Junk Science

At the end of this session, you will learn about:

• Modern forensic techniques that can make a difference in the outcome of a liability claim.

• The need to employ a system for selecting and managing forensic experts.

• The value of developing partnerships to prepare you before you have a claim.

Learning Objectives

9

Process SciencePeople

10

11

Fire Investigation – Process

Where did the fire start?

What caused the fire?

Who is responsible?

Process

12

BLOW UP

13

14

St. John The Divine

15

St. John The Divine

• Proactive planning

• Crisis response plan

• Assume – Every notice will result in litigation

• “Fight like hell”

• Identify your team

• Go to the scene (if you can)

16

Tripp Lite Lessons Learned

Process

• Inside staff• Risk management

• Legal

• Engineering/Technical

• Product/Service Familiarity

– Installation requirements

– Maintenance/repair

– Failure modes

• Outside Support• Legal

• Experts

• Review Team

• Network

17

Team Approach

People

• Credentials

• Education

• Currency

• Experience• Forensic

• Litigation

• Platform Skills• Oral

• Writing

• Publications/Presentations

• 702 Challenges

18

Experts – Key Characteristics

People

Science

Reliability

Data Collection

Analysis

Science

21

Data, data, data…

Reliability

Data Collection

Analysis

Science

23

“If alligatoring is large, deep, and

shiny, the fire spread extremely

rapidly. Large alligatoring should

be considered an indication of the

presence of a flammable or

combustible liquid.”*

* 1982 IFSTA (International Fire Service Training Association) Manual

Junk Science

24

1) The testimony is based upon sufficient

facts or data;

2) the testimony is the product of reliable

principles and methods; and

3) the witness has applied the principles and

methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Expert Reliability –Rule 702, in part

Gather

Data

Techniques & Tools

ScienceScience

26

Digital Forensics

• A branch of forensic science encompassing the recovery

and analysis of material found in digital devices

27

Surveillance Cameras

Commuting 4-12X

Gas station, toll booth

public transportation

Work 16-24 X

Lobby, elevators,

office parking lots

28

Attempted Arson (video)

29

Arc Flash Fire (video)

30

Smartphones

• Who you are

• Where you are

• Who you’re talking to

• Contacts

• Photos

• Video

31

Social Media

32

Social Media Forensics• Social media forensics can be applied in various ways

during claim investigation

• Greenwood Seattle

explosion 3/9/2016

• 1,000+ public mentions

on Facebook

• 250+ Twitter posts in 48

hours of the event

• 350+ images posted to

Instagram with hashtag

#greenwoodexplosion

33

CAT Scanning

Coffee makerSuspected ofstarting fire

34

Heating Tube

High Limit Safety

Thermostat

35

Heating Tube

High Limit Safety

Thermostat

36

37

Image of TVSS melted

Into carpet

Scanning Electron MircoscopyEnergy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis

1Page

Notes:

Element Weight % Atomic % Net Int. Error % Kratio Z R A FC K 57.63 65.67 5521.40 5.69 0.3051 1.0207 0.9885 0.5186 1.0000

O K 37.49 32.07 3116.50 9.56 0.0503 0.9793 1.0077 0.1369 1.0000

MgK 1.73 0.97 1201.10 6.58 0.0073 0.9082 1.0377 0.4637 1.0034

AlK 0.21 0.11 193.40 6.71 0.0011 0.8752 1.0440 0.6111 1.0058

SiK 1.23 0.60 1441.00 3.68 0.0084 0.8951 1.0500 0.7550 1.0072

CaK 1.71 0.58 1608.30 1.91 0.0158 0.8485 1.0797 1.0413 1.0423

No Bismuth (Bi), Cobalt (Co), Zinc (Zn), or Manganese (Mn)

39

Conclusion

• Be proactive – It’s not a matter of “if,” just “when”

• Know the type of losses you may be involved in

• Assemble your team

• Identify the right experts

• Be aware of the latest techniques

• Establish a response team

• Be sure to involve your carrier