|
|
|
|
|
|

|
|

       |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured, a metal working facility, claimed damage to their manufacturing
equipment consisting of CNC and manual milling machines, lathes, presses,
boring and honing equipment, grinders and EDM machines when a severe fire
broke out. In addition, the power distribution equipment including transformers
and switchgear were allegedly damaged. The claimed replacement cost was
roughly $2M. LWG Consulting was asked to verify the extent of damage and
determine the best path to restore the insured's operations to pre-loss
condition.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG performed an inspection of the inventory. Despite the various manufacturers'
recommendations to replace the equipment LWG concluded that the exposure
to the smoke and water was not extensive enough to warrant replacement.
LWG recommended a combination of decontamination and minor repairs in
order to restore the equipment to pre-loss condition. Since the manufacturers
had voided the warranties and service agreements, LWG arranged for third
parties to provide the warranties and service contracts after the equipment
had been restored.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
The equipment was restored for a
cost of $250,000. Warranties and service contracts were arranged which cost
an additional $100,000, resulting in a total cost to restore the insured's
operation to pre-loss condition of $350,000.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured, a metal processing operation, claimed that the large reaction
vessel of an evaporator used to remove water from a salt byproduct of
metal processing suffered a collapse. The plant was being commissioned
and had just ramped up to full production a few days before the loss.
LWG was to determine the cause of the failure of the vessel. The insurer's
exposure included the cost to repair the collapsed vessel, business interruption
and re-manufacturing of the insured's other similar vessels totaling approximately
$1M.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
An LWG consultant who is both a professional engineer and a CFEI (Certified
Fire and Explosion Investigator) visited the insured's plant and performed
an inspection of the equipment in question. The scene was carefully examined,
and all evidence documented. The consultant also hosted discussions with
the German manufacturer of the equipment while he was on site.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
LWG determined that the cause of
the loss was the result of a manufacturer's defect. Since the insured did
not have coverage for any type of breakdown, the claim was denied.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
Insured claims that lightning caused damage to the software and controller
of a CNC machine. Repairs attempted by the insured and their vendor did
not correct the intermittent failure of the machine. The insured requested
replacement for $117,000.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting inspected the machine and performed functionality testing.
The electrical system in the premises was also inspected. Technical research
was conducted by contacting the manufacturer and other vendors.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
It was determined that the damage
and the intermittent failure were caused by an artificially generated electrical
current resulting from the use of an arc welder in the building without
proper grounding. Artificially generated electrical current was excluded
from coverage.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured claims the theft of a number of hard disk drives, and data
tapes from their offices caused loss of data including design drawings
of 13,750 projects. The total claim amount was $123,000, including replacement
of the equipment and regenerating the design drawings.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting interviewed the insured and their technical staff. Paper
copies of the design drawings were reviewed and analyzed. Market research
was conducted to determine the cost of options to return the insured to
a pre-loss condition.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
It was determined that the replacement
cost of the equipment should not exceed $37,000. The cost to regenerate
the design drawings was not to exceed $17,000 for a total settlement amount
of $54,000.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured claims that a lightning related surge, which occurred several
months earlier, weakened electronic components causing intermittent failure
of a digital automation system in a radio station. The manufacturer voided
the warranty and recommended replacement for a total of $96,000.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting inspected the site of the loss and tested the equipment.
The system and the intermittent failure were analyzed to determine the
cause of failure.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
It was determined that the intermittent
failure of the equipment is not related to lightning. Instead, the system
would lockup as a result of incompatibility between the operating system
and the automation software. LWG's report was used in arbitration proceedings,
which resulted in the warranty to be reinstated and the claim denied.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured claimed that dust from construction caused overheating of
components within computer equipment resulting in failure of the equipment.
Replacement cost was claimed to be $74,000.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting inspected the site of the loss and tested the equipment.
Wipe samples were taken to analyze the level and type of contamination,
if any.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
Based on the results of chemical
testing of the wipe samples, it was determined that there was no evidence
of construction dust within the equipment. Failure of the equipment was
consistent with normal wear and tear.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
The insured claims that during a computer failure in a data warehousing
facility caused data loss of millions of records. The total cost to reestablish
the lost records was $730,000.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting conducted technical interviews of the insured's IT personnel,
the manufacturers and the programmers of the software systems. Computer
logs were reviewed and analyzed.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
It was determined that programming
errors during the upgrade of the software caused the loss. The claim was
denied and the insured used LWG Consulting's findings to subrogate against
the software developer.
|
|
|

|
|
|
THE CLAIM
|
|
A fire occurred in a manufacturing facility. The insurance company retained
an origin and cause investigator who determined the point of origin. Several
electrical artifacts were found in the area of origin. The fire caused
$670,000 in property damages.
|
|
|
ACTIVITIES
|
|
LWG Consulting performed a comprehensive scene examination and secured
the electrical artifacts as evidence. The manufacturers were put on notice.
Exemplars were purchased and tested. Destructive testing of the evidence
was hosted at LWG Consulting's laboratories in the presence of representatives
of the manufacturers and contractors.
|
|
|
FINDINGS
|
|
Based on the results of testing
and analysis, LWG Consulting formulated expert opinions as to the cause of
the fire. Subrogation against responsible parties proceeded. LWG Consulting
provided expert testimony in court presenting the evidence and the opinions.
|
|
|

|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|