Perhaps due to the popularity of television shows that featureforensic medical doctors, archeologists, and scientists solvingmurder cases, the term forensic seems to have been inaccuratelyassociated with death. The word actually comes from Latin and means“before the forum,” which effectively is a synonym for related tocourts.

Forensic engineers use their knowledge of science, mathematics,and engineering to assist in the explanation of evidence anddetermination of facts, which may involve litigation. Forensicengineers are trained problem solvers who specialize in determiningcause and origin of technically difficult claims in accidentreconstruction, product liability, premise liability, andwork-related injuries.

The effective utilization of forensic engineering can helpsettle a claim accurately and equitably, prevent incorrectassumptions of liability, and help identify fraud. By avoidingcommon mistakes, the adjuster can assist in answering the criticalquestions of “How?” and “Why?” and move beyond documenting, “Howmuch?”

The Scientific Method

When applied to claim analysis, the scientific method is aprocess by which the forensic engineer seeks to construct anaccurate and consistent explanation of cause and origin whileminimizing the influence of bias or prejudice. Sometimes, commonsense and logic tempt us into believing that no systematicprocedure is needed and that our general knowledge and experiencealone provides sufficient foundation on which to draw a conclusion.An appropriate and often quoted reminder is, “Smart people can comeup with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.”

The scientific method consists of four steps:

1. Observation and description.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis. In forensic engineering, thisoften takes the form of a causal mechanism or mathematicalrelationships.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the results of newobservations.
4. Performance of experimental tests to verify, refine, or rejectthe hypothesis.

When analyzing a claim, identifying data and information andrecognizing the potential difference between the two is important.Data consists of factual observations and descriptions that areorganized for analyzation or used to reason and make decisions.Information is derived knowledge of specific events or situationsthat has been gathered or received through communication. Asderived knowledge, the information already may include bias orconclusions formulated without sound foundation. At the scene of anaccident, witnesses often formulate mental pictures that make senseand bridge the gaps between what is observed and the final result.These conclusions of causation often are little more than a generalcorrelation of observations lacking sound logic or scientificfoundation and sometimes include inherent contradictions.

Below are some common mistakes made while applying thescientific method:

• Conclusions made based on general knowledge withoutincident-specific data.
• Ignored or ruled out data that does not support the hypothesis.Additional data should be used to further test the hypothesis.
• Systematic errors. Consistently making the same mistake doesn'tmake the results correct, just repeatable.
• Conclusion by consensus. Repeated analysis and testing of ahypothesis by multiple independent sources is part of thetransition from a hypothesis to a scientific theory, but aconclusion is not valid because a majority believes it to beso.
• Using the lack of evidence as proof.
• Improper foundation, faulty logic, or use of correlation toestablish causation. For example, consider the following statement:“Each time it rains, there are umbrellas everywhere. Therefore,umbrellas must cause rain.”

Recognize and avoid common mistakes in applying the scientificmethod. The following examples were found in actual insurancereports (the term engineering reports may have been used despitethe lack of use of engineering principles or methods). In general,it is illegal for individuals or companies to offer engineeringservices to the public or to use the word engineer, engineering, orother forms of the word unless a registered professional engineeris responsible for the work. The claim circumstances and reportresults are summarized in the following examples.

Knee Deep in Hot Water

A hot water supply line failed in a 12-story hotel, resulting ina multi-million-dollar water loss incident. The hotel had beencompletely renovated — including plumbing and electrical wiring —one year prior to the loss. The original report made to theinsurance adjuster stated simply that the origin of the event wasthe 10th-floor ceiling in the east building. The cause of the floodwas the joint separation between a two-inch pipe and aT-fitting.

When the water was turned back on to test the replacement of thefailed joint, multiple secondary leaks occurred, which the reportstated must have been caused by a pressure surge. The analysis ofthe flood stated a cause (a joint failure) and origin (locationwithin the building) and included approximately 100 photographsthat documented the water damage throughout the hotel and threephotographs of the actual failed plumbing members and location.

The report did not employ a scientific method to technicallyanswer the questions, “How?” and “Why?” in part because theinvestigation lacked sufficient observations and data, no analysiswas apparently performed, and general conclusions were formedconsisting of little more than repeating the introductoryinformation and reporting the detailed problem statement.

As a claim adjuster, how would you proceed if the report alsoincluded dozens of annotated pictures and a specific explanation ofthe causal mechanism of failure of the subject connection? Theforensic engineering report related the lack of strength of thecemented joint to improper installation, the influence ofover-heated water, and initial pipe stress. The report also saidthat the piping was unnecessarily subjected to significant stressand strain for numerous reasons, including restrictions thatlimited thermal expansion, bending of pipe segments against otherpipes and structural members, bending of pipe to forcefully alignor accommodate improperly cut lengths, lack of proper spacing ofpipe hangers, and numerous documented examples of other plumbingcode violations at the subject location and throughout the hotel.As a result of the subsequent forensic engineering report, the costof the insured loss was recovered through subrogation.

Hurricane Damage or Maintenance Issues?

Following two hurricane events in central Florida duringSeptember 2004, a hotel reported water damage involvingapproximately 15 percent of its guest rooms. The hotel owner hireda company to perform a site inspection and determined the cause ofthe water infiltration, which was submitted along with theinsurance claim for a roof replacement and repair of water damage.The buildings were steel framed with EFIS (exterior foam insulatedsystem) wall construction and had built-up modified bitumen roofswith tar and gravel ballast. The following examples from the reportshow how the failure to apply a scientific method resulted inunfounded conclusions.

General statements of weather conditions associated with theSeptember hurricanes reportedly included 15 inches of rain in someareas and sustained hurricane-force winds up to 108 mph. Analysisof weather data for the subject property from a nearby observationsite, as well as Doppler weather data overlaid for the specificlocation, indicated that the maximum sustained wind speed at thesubject location during the month was 51 mph and peak wind gust was70 mph. The maximum 24-hour rain accumulations were 1.60 inches and4.28 inches, with a monthly total of 9.25 inches (the normalmonthly average was 5.64 inches).

The report for the cause of the loss said, “It is our opinionthat, more likely than not, the roof system was fractured under theincreased stress from the increase uplift pressure during thestorm. Wind-borne debris also could have penetrated the membranes.”The opinion was without foundation or supporting evidence, as shownby another comment that said, “There is no question that the typeof damage was caused by roof leaks, yet there was no apparent signof distress to the roof membranes.”

In the same report, other statements that contradict thewind-uplift conclusion were made. “We consider the waterinfiltration in the roof system to be a progressive failure, whichultimately worsened over time,” read one of the statements.“Although some pre-existing conditions were identified that mayhave contributed to the water infiltration problem, we considerthese details minor and without consequence to the overall scope ofour investigation,” said another. The report selectively ignoredevidence contrary to the conclusion and indicated that the cause ofthe loss was due to a specific hurricane event and was aprogressive failure that worsened over time.

Critical data that was not identified during the initialinvestigation included that the primary roof drains had been cappedfollowing the expansion and renovation of the hotel, whicheliminated critical storm drainage means. A parapet wall had beenadded to the full perimeter of the roofs with scuppers added fordrainage. The scupper locations coincided with the expansion jointsof the roof and provided an ideal leak path under the roofsurface.

The 22-year-old roof also showed many signs of prolonged lack ofmaintenance, including rusted-out condensation drain pans withthick, organic matter growing under the rooftop air conditioningunits, rotted-out wood frames at roof access and skylightlocations, rusted nails and flashing portions that left open holes,old roofing sections that lacked asphalt with visible fiberglass,and significant evidence of long-term ponding or water-retentionproblems. An aerial photograph taken two years prior to the lossshowed the hotel roof with large wet areas and organic growthsimilar to fields of green around ponds. The date of the photographwas compared to historic weather data, which indicated noprecipitation had occurred in the area for the six days precedingand including the date of the photograph.

CSI – Claim Scene Investigation

What can you do to assure accurate claim analysis and assist theforensic engineer? Beyond the documentation of the accident orloss, focus additionally on details, data, and any potentialindication of causation. The following are reminders that maysignificantly impact a case:

Identify and preserve evidence. During the effort to mitigatedamages or clear an accident scene, it is not uncommon for evidenceto be removed, lost, or discarded. Instruct those present to secureand maintain potential evidence. Whenever possible, havephotographs taken prior to removing anything from the scene.Document stored evidence and maintain a chain-of-custodyrecord.

Photographs and video should give additional attention to theorigin and cause. For accidents, include details of thesurroundings, fixed reference points, points of view andvisibility, debris, road scars, and skid marks. Photographs of theinteriors and components within the vehicles involved often arecritical in determining occupant dynamics and injuries.

Document everything. Preserve how the loss occurred, thoseinvolved, circumstances, conditions, and try to construct atimeline of potentially related events that led to the accident orloss.

Statements: The more the better. Written or recorded statementsfrom witnesses provide valuable information that often is lostthrough paraphrasing or lack of familiarity of technical terms.Contrived or rehearsed statements, results contrary to laws ofscience and engineering principles, inconsistent time and eventsequences, out-of-place elements, and conflicting data may all beindications of potential fraud.

Check for silent witnesses. Recognize and seek out sources ofcritical data and information that are silent. Numerous vehiclesare equipped with sensor diagnostic modules or crash data recorderscontaining pre-impact and post-impact data. Look for sources ofvideo monitoring that may have inadvertently or unintentionallycaptured an event. Many locations such as banks, ATMs, gasstations, hotels, car washes, intersections, and parking lots havevideo monitoring. Time is of the essence because the recordingsoften are not maintained very long.

Conduct systematic analyses. Do not assume a conclusion ofcausation and liability without resolving technical issues offeasibility and understanding how and why. There is more toliability than a traffic ticket. Despite physical evidence at thescene, a traffic citation may not be written for many offensesunless witnessed by the officer. Verbal admissions of fault may bebased on a layperson's interpretation and assumption of what musthave happened, despite technical evidence or conflicting data.

Ensure that forensic engineering reports are easy to read. Thereport should be understandable but may need to be included inpotential litigation, so be aware that technically precise languageoften is required. Do not hesitate to ask questions. Engineeringreports should provide you with answers and assist the claimprofessional in effectively and efficiently determining whathappened.

Forensic engineers may quickly resolve issues and questionsbased on their technical understanding and systematic problemsolving. The adjuster may seek guidance and explanation,identification and potential for subrogation, analysis of theclaims of other carriers, or a full forensic investigation andanalysis.

Elliot L. Stern is president of Florida Forensic Engineeringin Tampa, Fla. He can be reached at [email protected] or813-868-3334.