 |
West Central States
Defendant’s attempt to dispose of evidence doesn’t bar recovery.
A sprinkler maintenance company failed to properly drain a line in a dry sprinkler system during a service call. As a result, the water retained in the system froze and burst the fitting, causing significant water damage to the insured’s assisted living facility. Despite efforts by the sprinkler maintenance company to dispose of evidence of the cause of the freeze up, Stutman attorneys retained a sprinkler expert and, through an engineering analysis of the limited remaining evidence, recreated the cause of the loss. The Stutman firm also established that the technician who serviced the system was inexperienced and rushed to complete his work prior to the Christmas holiday. The case settled for a confidential amount prior to trial.Spoliation of evidence doesn’t bar recovery.
A fire occurred in four garages that were attached to a multi-unit apartment building in Texas. The client retained its own expert, an electrical engineer, to examine a fire scene prior to referring the loss to Stutman. The expert went to the scene and removed evidence before anyone was placed on notice. The Stutman firm obtained details surrounding the loss and sent our own investigator to the scene to perform his examination. Our investigator determined that the loss likely involved an outlet. The Stutman firm immediately placed electrical outlet manufacturer on notice and arranged for a joint scene examination. The original expert hired by the client was unable to reconstruct the scene and replace vital evidence that he had previously removed. Our client’s expert had no photographs of the evidence as it existed in its original location. The electrical outlet manufacturer immediately claimed spoliation of evidence and claimed that we could not establish that its product was even related to the loss. Stutman’s investigator systematically examined the scene and isolated the fire’s point of origin to limit the only possible ignition source as the outlet. Despite the fact that the outlet manufacturer had a good spoliation defense, the thoroughness of our investigation convinced them to reach a substantial out of court settlement.Over $1 million recovered for devastating injuries caused by catastrophic crane collapse.
Johnson, Kansas. Without warning, the hydraulic boom of a truck mounted boom crane manufactured by of one of the industry’s best known crane manufacturer’s failed to maintain its hydraulic pressure and collapsed, resulting in critical injuries to two occupants working within a basket suspended 70’ above the ground. The workers were in the process of welding sheet metal to a grain silo when the boom lost hydraulic pressure and telescoped down, approximately 40’, first striking a roof structure which upended the basket ejecting the workers who plummeted another 30 ‘ to the ground. The assessment for the cause of the accident: design defects with the crane which permitted critical cables to be crossed which directly led to the defect that caused the loss of hydraulic pressure; and improper equipment maintenance and absence of regular equipment inspection that would have discovered the defect.The Stutman firm was able to obtain $1 million (to date) from the crane owner, the rental company, and the equipment lessor. The machine’s manufacturer also contributed to the settlement for improper equipment design. Had the manufacturer used alternative design options, the equipment would either never have been placed into the stream of commerce in a defective condition, or would have been designed so that users of the product performing maintenance could have easily recognized a hazardous and foreseeable condition that could be remedied prior to an accident occurring.
Utility company prevented from passing the blame for explosion.
A gas company’s negligent instructions to its contractor led to an explosion and fire in a residential property located in Boonville, Missouri. Investigation of the residential property revealed that the fire originated at a furnace located in the basement of the property.Through an aggressive investigation, Stutman attorneys discovered that the local gas company retained a subcontractor to replace gas lines in the neighborhood where the residential property was located. Accordingly, the gas company and its subcontractor were placed on notice of a claim for the damages as a result of this fire. The subcontractor responded by stating they were simply working at the direction, control and supervision of the gas company who instructed them to pressure the gas lines to 10 pounds per square inch even though the lines were only designed to operate at ¼ pounds per square inch. Armed with this information from the subcontractor, Stutman’s expert determined this over pressurization of the gas lines damaged the regulator in the furnace and caused the fire. Stutman attorney’s reached a six figure settlement with the gas company, without litigation, for 90% of the total claim for damages.
