Fire & Flood Claims and Expert witness support

     The first surprising issues regarding fire & flood claims is just how little is understood about consequential effects, mitigation and litigation opportunities. This is explained by the almost unbelievable situation in the UK that restoration training is not required for loss adjusters, and that contractors have no recognised training, syllabus or indeed certification.

The BDMA British Damage Management Association which is recognised by some insurers has perhaps a thousand certified technicians who took a multiple question paper that has had the same questions for ten years  but incredibly has no syllabus or training provision or even a security chain of custody for papers. With professional procurement replacing the 200 independent fire and flood restoration companies in the UK with less than 10 the contracts now go to the lowest bidder.

Low bid procurement is a god sent when faced with a public, or industry that has no experience or training in what is professional recovery. KPIs key Performance Indicators used by insurers to gauge the competence and contract compliance measure how straight a tie is and whether the van is clean. So just how bad is the fire and flood industry? I have audited major and minor claims throughout the UK for over 10 years and almost 100% of claims have been mishandled and the insured left with latent damage issues and sometimes serious health concerns from incompetent restoration or recovery  procedures. Although my criticism may offend some, the real judge and exponent was Sir Michael Pitt who after reviewing the restoration company’s response to the 2007 flooding stated that they need to get their act together as nobody seemed to know what to do. See Pitt Review section 7.

Typical issues are:

• How soon did the claims management team respond with beneficial actions?
• How quickly did the restoration team engage mitigation controls?
• Was damage controlled, contained and mitigated from secondary effects
• Were competent and economic salvage principles engaged?
• Were contamination and health risks assessed and decontamination certified?
• Was a practical drying program installed which minimised disruption and prevented secondary damage to contents and structure?
• Was a measured and independently certified drying certificate issued?
• Were contaminates such as Toxic mould –asbestos or chemical residue and biological activity removed and measured?
• Are latent or hidden damage or contaminates present which may cause future intermittent or unknown consequences?

The fire and flood industry has always been a famine or feast industry but the use of professional procurement has resulted in a downgrade of profit centres in the very areas where profit has historically been gathered. This now means that drying equipment is charged at such low rates that contractors prefer to earn higher income from ancillary actions often with no practical use.

Historically surveyors have been seen as the experts in measuring building damage and loss adjusters in policy limits or best practice. Neither profession has specific training or certification in these fields, relying on experience which so often has been found to lacking in objectivity or accurate measurement. Recent cases of expert witness work has exposed the typical misunderstandings of these groups and significantly turned case presumptions on their head.

Experts in these fields must use technology and equipment and the following are typical examples:

• Infra red thermography to identify heat loss cold and wet areas caused by water damage or construction defect.
• Phsychrometric chats and thermo hygrometers  to measure and compare air moisture content.
• Ultrasonic and conductive moisture meters.
• Calcium carbide and humidity sleeves to assess concrete and walls moisture content.
• SAS and Non viable mould sampling.
• Bulk surface sampling for mould and biological activity.
• Chloride testing for corrosive soot residue.
• Chlorine and nitrate testing to identify source of water.
• Pre existing conditions etc.

It should be recognised that both insurers and the insured are likely to require legal assistance in post claim or disaster event because both are likely to suffer the effects of incompetent claims management (loss adjusters) or incompetent contractors and subrogation in the USA in this area appears to be a growing industry.

Forensic investigation of claim management is again a growth industry in USA. Time line issues are of paramount importance and typically a wet building in the UK can be expected to develop a toxic type mould within a week where conditions are suitable. Contractors that fail to install controls and initiate a competent drying regime may be responsible for both large scale secondary and unnecessary damage as well as serious health issues for building occupants.

Wide area floods almost always cause sewers and foul water drainage systems to overflow and carry pollutants from soil and gardens into people’s homes or property. These contaminates can flourish in the building which becomes a giant grow bag. Mould and specifically Toxic genus can cause extremely serious health problems for people in homes that have been affected by even minor water leaks and indeed condensation.

Mould can cause a variety of health effects which include:

• Flu like symptoms
• Brain tumours
• Liver & lung cancer
• Spontaneous abortion
• Depression etc.

So often incompetent contractors simply kill the mould by washing with bleach but this simply kills the spore and releases the mycotoxins (chemicals) which are extremely small and these are recognised as causing serious health issues live or dead as they are easily inhaled. The chemicals released from spores are generally known as T2 toxins and have been used by the military for WMDs and can be easily measured for presence and quantity. Significantly if a building has been affected by water damage for more than a few days a mould control and decontamination procedure should have been installed with independent clearance, an action almost never undertaken.

Fires have different issues , although l the effects of water damage from extinguishing can cause many of the previously mentioned mould and latent damage problems. Odour is a key point of concern. Often contractors use deodorants to mask the offensive and irritating smell of fire. This simply  hides the true condition and generally must be seen as camouflaging a problem. Chlorides is another issue which is invariably ignored. During fires sulphuric acid is made from the burning of PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride)  and combination with water. The acid can materialise from soot’s or vapour and can cause intermittent or long term faults in electrical and electronic equipment, perhaps months or years after the event. Proof of competent decontamination must be provided.