South Atlantic States

Stutman recovers millions in metal halide fire litigation.

A large commercial warehouse was destroyed by one of the largest fires in the city’s history. After several years of litigation and discovery, the Stutman Firm established that the fire was initially caused by a defective metal halide lamp that endured what is known in the lighting industry as a “non-passive end of life failure.” Through discovery, the Stutman Firm established that metal halide lamp manufacturers have known about the explosive nature of metal halide lamps since the 1970’s and that technology for the development of explosion proof bulbs had existed since the early 1990’s. With this evidence the Stutman Firm was able to establish that the metal halide lamp which caused the fire was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it was not explosion proof and was not accompanied by any warnings regarding its propensity to explode and cause fires.

Having established the cause of the fire, the Stutman Firm then focused on fire spread issues to maximize its client’s recovery. Through the depositions of the first-responding firefighters, the Stutman Firm established that the first-responders were unable to successfully suppress the fire in its incipient stages because the warehouse aisles, including the area of origin, had been blocked by double-stacked pallets of computer equipment in corrugated cartons secured with shrink wrap. Expert testimony also established that the commercial tenant responsible for storing the computers and blocking the area of origin had violated the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. As a result, the Stutman Firm successfully established that the commercial tenant inside the warehouse was negligent and contributed to the development and spread of the fire.

The efforts of the Stutman Firm in attributing liability for the cause and spread of the fire yielded a substantial seven figure recovery for its client.

Snatching a victory ($950,000 worth) from the jaws of defeat.

The Stutman team recently reached a settlement of $950,000 in a case that literally was almost lost on the day of the fire. On a Saturday afternoon in June, firm founder Robert A. Stutman received a call from the client’s adjuster about a new loss that occurred that same day. The initial report was bleak because the Fire Marshal was planning to order the demolition of the building due to safety concerns. Within minutes of receiving the call, Mr. Stutman immediately formulated a game plan that would allow an investigation of the fire scene while ensuring that the fire scene was safe for investigators to examine. The firm’s New Loss Department Chair, David P. Eastlack, immediately contacted a local fire investigator who traveled to the fire scene and explained to the fire officials how they could shore up the building so that it was safe to conduct a proper fire scene examination.

Subsequently, the investigators retained by the Stutman firm worked with the local fire officials to identify the cause and origin of the fire. The investigators were able to retrieve video surveillance tapes, which revealed the fire’s area of origin. The appropriate parties were placed on notice of a possible claim and a joint fire scene examination was conducted. The investigators retained by the Stutman team found that a power cord had been inadvertently left pinched beneath a piece of equipment when it was installed.

As a result, a lawsuit was filed against the company responsible for installing the piece of equipment. During a litigation in which approximately twenty depositions were taken, the Stutman Litigation team was able to show that the equipment had never been moved or altered in any manner such that the original installer was responsible for a problem involving the placement of the power cord under the machine.

As a result of the adjuster’s quick referral, the Stutman team was able to snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat.

Litigators lead with their chin in restaurant fire.

A restaurant fire in Dover, DE, was caused by the insured’s employee through careless cooking. The Stutman firm, however, made a $500,000 recovery against the company responsible for installing, inspecting, and maintaining the kitchen fire suppression system which failed to activate at the time of the fire. Stutman attorneys argued that there was no contributory negligence and the cause of the fire was irrelevant because kitchen fires are expected. The firm argued that the suppression company was primarily responsible because their system should not have failed to suppress the fire in its incipient stage.

Limited coverage requires prompt action.

A massive gas explosion occurred at a chemical plant in Florida resulting in several deaths, severe injuries and property damage claims. The chemical plant had limited coverage for all of the death, personal injury and property damage claims.

Stutman attorneys retained an expert who immediately investigated the loss scene and determined the cause of the explosion. Thereafter, Stutman attorneys communicated with counsel for the chemical plant, who advised that there was limited coverage available for all claims resulting from the explosion and the limited coverage would be dispensed on a first come first serve basis. Further, counsel for the plant advised that once coverage was extinguished no further claims would be entertained. Stutman attorneys worked expeditiously with the adjuster to obtain all documents in support of the property damage losses before the limited coverage was no longer available. Stutman attorneys received the necessary information and submitted a demand package to the attorneys for the chemical plant. Thereafter, Stutman obtained an immediate settlement for 100% of its clients property damage before the limited coverage was extinguished satisfying other death, injury, and property damage claims.

Metal halide light bulb “cooks” nuts.

A Georgia company was in the business of packaging and selling nuts. They had a refrigerated warehouse on site at their plant and one night, the fire alarm activated. The fire department found a small fire in the warehouse directly under a light fixture. The sprinkler system had activated and had contained the fire to a small area. The light fixture over the fire was missing its plastic cover and the bulb had apparently exploded. The top half of the bulb was still in the fixture, but the bottom half was scattered in the debris. Every other light fixture in the room was still illuminated when the fire department arrived. A fuse had blown in the refrigeration equipment. When it was replaced, the equipment functioned normally. The fire department assumed that the light fixture had something to do with the fire but could not figure out exactly what had happened. Smoke and water from the fire and the sprinkler system contaminated the food product in the warehouse. The nuts were condemned and sold as hog feed for very little value; the damages, however, exceeded $3,000,000.

The Stutman firm determined that the light was a metal halide light fixture. Metal halide light bulbs can explode in what is known as “end of life failures.” It is well known that if the hot glass scatters onto light combustibles, like cardboard, it will ignite. The light fixture cover is intended to catch and contain the hot pieces of glass to prevent a fire. There is a U.L. standard that governs the design of the cover, or “lamp containment barrier”. That standard was changed, because the plastic cover, or “lamp containment barriers”, like the one used on the fixture in this case, had a tendency to catch fire in the event of a bulb explosion. The fixture involved in our case was approved under the old standard and not the new standard. This fact allowed the Stutman firm to prove both a negligence and product defect case against the manufacturer of the lamp cover. The product was defective, because it did not comply with the U.L. standard and was unsafe. The defendant initially alleged that their product met the new standard, but the Stutman team proved they were lying by conducting tests of an exemplar light obtained at the scene. The defendant was negligent for failing to keep up with the changes to the U.L. standards that were designed to make the product safe. The defendant initially alleged that their product met the new standard, but the Stutman team proved they were lying by conducting tests of an exemplar light obtained at the scene.The loss was in excess of $3,500,000 and the Stutman firm negotiated a significant, confidential seven-figure settlement.

Negligent tenants responsible for water damage from frozen pipes.

Significant damage, caused by frozen pipes in a vacation home in Maryland, occurred while in use by renters. The Stutman firm represented the insurance carrier and insured in an action against the renters for failing to maintain adequate heat and recovered $750,000 in total. The insurer was able to make subrogation recovery even though Maryland has adopted the implied co-insured rule which precludes a landlord’s subrogated insurer from pursuing a subrogation recovery against the landlord’s renters (see Allstate v. Rausch). The Stutman firm also established, through multiple depositions and a mold expert, that the renters had left the house abandoned for several weeks during the winter and ignored continuous problems with the HVAC system inside the home.

Uncovering code violations leads to successful recovery.

A fire at a multi-story apartment building in Maryland was caused by a plumber soldering a domestic water line in the basement of the building. Although the plumber argued that the damages were exacerbated by the lack of proper fire stops and fire walls in the old apartment building, the Stutman firm recovered $1,250,000 from the plumber after proving that he violated several provisions of the NFPA code, including the requirement to maintain a fire watch.

Hotel guest and visitor share responsibility for fire.

This claim involved a fire at an extended stay type hotel in North Carolina. A hotel guest was cooking and left the pan unattended on the stove and hot cooking oil ignited a fire. Although the fire was put out relatively quickly, the sprinkler system activated and caused considerable flood damage. The hotel guest had limited insurance coverage, but the Stutman firm’s investigation revealed that there was also another person in the room when the fire occurred. The Stutman firm obtained contributions from the homeowner’s carriers of both responsible parties totaling $250,000.

Failure to follow installation instructions leads to recovery.

The Stutman firm settled a case in which a flood at a South Carolina resort caused over $130,000 in damages. The loss occurred after a sprinkler installer used a faded section of CPVC piping which had been left out in the sun during construction eight years prior to the loss. The installer claimed there was no requirement to keep the piping shielded from sunlight. The Stutman firm was able to locate a 1998 version of the installation manual from the manufacturer of the CPVC pipe which stated that faded sections should be discarded. The Stutman firm was also able to perform testing on the faded section of piping showing it had only 40% of the strength it was supposed to. The case settled for close to 100% of paid damages.

Spontaneous combustion guts South Carolina new home.

A fire occurred in a Greenville, S.C. new home that was under construction and nearly complete. The Stutman's insured was acting as the builder and the homeowner was acting as the general contractor on the project. The fire caused several hundred thousand dollars in insured losses and well as a substantial uninsured loss to the homeowners.

The homeowners hired a contractor to do the faux finish and staining work at the property. The contractor had completed its work the day prior to the fire’s discovery and took the position that the fire could not have been caused by their work. The testimony from the contractor was that they had cleaned up all of their work areas, secured the home and left the previous day. The defendant also claimed that despite the manufacturer’s warning, the materials they used were incapable of spontaneous combustion.

During the course of discovery, the Stutman firm was able to learn that the contractor did not properly train its employees and failed to follow the manufacturer’s recommendation of proper clean-up of soiled rags. Initially, the employees told the fire officials that they had stacked stain soaked rags in piles so they could be used later in time. At the time of their depositions, the employees changed their testimony and testified that they only piled lightly used rags which could be reused in piles inside a five gallon plastic container.

During the fire investigators deposition, Stutman attorneys learned that although the fire marshal listed the cause of the fire as undetermined in his public report, he also completed a private report. His private report listed the cause of the fire as most probably the result of spontaneous combustion as a result of improperly disposed of stain soaked rags. At his deposition he agreed that was his opinion and amended his public report to reflect his conclusion.

By cross examining the contractors’ employees with inconsistent statements, and by eliminating any other potential causes of the fire, the Stutman firm was able to build a strong circumstantial case against the defendant. Our cause and origin expert solidified our case during his deposition and the case settled shortly thereafter for $200,000 (approximately 75% of paid damages).

Downed electrical wire causes fire and recovery against utility company.

A residential home in West Virginia lost power during a snow storm when a tree fell onto an electrical line. At the time of the outage, the homeowner notified the power company of the details of the incident. Shortly thereafter, the power company repaired the downed wire. When the tree fell, the wires were pulled loose inside of the homes outside electrical meter such that the wire came into contact with the conduit. This energized the conduit and ultimately ignited the vinyl siding of the insured’s home. Stutman’s expert retained several electrical wires in the area of the meter base, a section of aluminum siding which shows evidence of electrical arcing and the meter base itself.

Since the homeowner reported the downed wire before power was restored to the home, the utility company should have known that restoring electrical power to the home before checking on the downed wire was dangerous, and Stutman’s attorneys proved their actions were negligent which directly led to this fire loss. A significant six-figure recovery was obtained from the utility company.