A business owner in Missouri filed a claim with his insurance company stating that the roof of his building had been heavily damaged by a severe hailstorm. As a result of that barrage of hail, rain was able to pour into the building, causing extensive damage to walls and equipment. The insurance policy stipulated that damage to the interior of the building due to rain would be covered only if rain entered the building due to natural causes, such as damage to the roof or exterior walls by virtue of strong winds or hail.

The hailstorm which occurred in that section of Missouri on that day was well documented. It caused extensive damage to homes, vehicles and businesses. Upon inspection of the damaged roof, the adjuster for the insurance company suspected fraud. He contacted COMPUWEATHER and requested a complete breakdown of the weather for that day and time period. Pin-point analysis of the weather for the exact spot in question was critical. The forensic team of meteorologists at COMPUWEATHER went to work. In addition to analyzing surface weather observations, storm reports and other special weather statements, Doppler radar images were also viewed. And these images told the tale. Hail was indeed widespread around the area that day, but not at the building site. The closest hail occurred about one-half mile to the north, northwest and east of the location of the building.

Based on this analysis, the claim was denied saving the insurance company $350,000. It was later determined that the damage to the roof, which allowed the rain to enter, was caused by neglect.

During the winter the roof of a building in upstate New York collapsed. Several small shops, offices, and a restaurant were located in the building. All of the businesses sustained extensive damage to their equipment and inventory, and had to either close down or find other locations to conduct their business. A class-action suit was brought against the owner of the building, with the claim being that the roof, which was flat, was not constructed properly, and thus could not hold up under the weight of the snow and ice which accumulated on it.

The attorneys working on behalf of the insurance carrier which wrote the policy for the building owner contacted COMPUWEATHER. A comprehensive report was prepared which detailed the amount of snow and ice which had occurred from the start of the winter season, up through the day that the roof collapsed. The report also included the daily temperature profile in order to establish how much frozen precipitation was likely to have been on the rooftop on the day of the collapse. The meteorologist assigned to the case outlined each melt/re-freeze cycle which occurred in the weeks prior to the accident. He also took into account the moisture content of each of the snow events which had taken place, since that information would be critical in determining the weight of the snow. Using mathematical equations which take all of this information into account, the final analysis showed that the roof collapsed under the weight of snow, ice and slush which added up to 45 pounds per square foot. This figure was nearly 20 pounds per square foot more than what local building codes required at the time that the roof was put on the building many years earlier.

In light of the evidence brought forth in the report from COMPUWEATHER, it was deemed that the owner of the building was not liable for damages and loss of business which resulted from the roof collapse.

A multi-vehicle accident involving seven cars and four trucks occurred on a stretch of Interstate 95 just outside of Richmond, Virginia. The accident took place in a roadway construction zone. The driver of the first vehicle involved in the accident stated that he slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting a construction barrier which was in his lane. That began the chain-reaction pile-up in which three people were injured badly enough to require hospitalization. The insurance company which covered the driver of the first vehicle paid claims which were filed by several of the other drivers. Their subrogation unit then initiated an investigation.

The investigator contacted COMPUWEATHER and requested a breakdown of the weather on the day of the accident. The forensic meteorologist assigned to the case determined that the sky was clear and that there had been no precipitation. This ruled out a slippery roadway surface playing any part in the accident. The wind however was a different story. Analysis showed that the wind had increased in the hours just before the accidents happened. Winds of 20-25 miles per hour along with gusts to 40 miles per hour were occurring. In addition, the wind was coming from a northeasterly direction. That meant that the wind was blowing from the construction area and towards the northbound lanes of I-95, which is where the accidents had occurred.

With the knowledge that the wind more than likely played a role in moving the barrier from the construction site and onto the road, the investigator looked into reports that the State Police had logged on that day. More than two dozen calls had been received by the police from motorists reporting construction barriers and debris being blown onto the road in that same area. The insurance company filed suite against the construction company claiming negligence in not properly securing the barrel-like barriers. Over $150,000 was recovered by the insurance company.

The company which owns and operates a huge parking facility at the Croton-Harmon commuter train station north of New York City was being sued in Small Claims Court. Plaintiff was the owner of a car which was damaged while parked in the lot on a day that flooding took place. While the amount in damage reimbursement being sought by the vehicle owner was relatively small at $ 550, there was concern by the parking lot company owners that if judgment was found in favor of the Plaintiff, that the flood gates could be opened for many other lawsuits, as over 1,000 vehicles had been damaged by water in the parking lot on that same day. So because of this concern, the owner of the parking lot brought in their attorney even though the case was being heard in Small Claims Court. Their attorney brought in COMPUWEATHER.

The big questions were this: Why did such terrible flooding occur in the parking lot and was it something that the owners should have reasonably expected to occur and prepare for? The forensic meteorologist assigned to the case prepared an in-depth analysis of the weather on the day of the occurrence, as well as the preceding day. What it showed is that a ferocious storm with very strong winds and heavy rain moved through the area. Rainfall for the two-day event amounted to more than three inches. A bad rainstorm? Yes it was, but not bad enough to explain the extensive flooding that occurred. Digging deeper, the meteorologist discovered that a rare astronomical occurrence had taken place on the very day of the storm. The occurrence was called The Great Syzygy, and it is an event which takes place only once every few centuries. Six planets in our solar system were in alignment on that day, along with the Moon. The result of this alignment was that the tidal flow in the Hudson River (which runs right next to the Croton-Harmon parking lot) was running extraordinarily high that day. This much higher than usual tide, combined with strong west winds on the backside of the storm which pushed water towards the east bank, caused water from the Hudson River to come up and over the embankment in between the river and the parking lot. That, on top of more than three inches of rain, produced the flooding.

The report prepared by COMPUWEATHER was presented as evidence at the hearing. Based on the fact that what had caused the flooding to occur was so rare an event, it was deemed by the judge that the owners of the lot could not have reasonably planned for such an occurrence to take place. Thus, they were not held liable for the damage which occurred to Plaintiff’s car. In following months, several other suits against the owners of the lot were heard. And each time, verdict was for the defense.

A rear-end collision took place on a side street in a suburb of Houston, causing injury to the driver of the first vehicle which was stopped at an intersection. The driver of the second vehicle stated that the sun was in his eyes to a point where he was temporarily blinded and could not see the first vehicle, which had stopped for a stop sign.

The attorney for the plaintiff called upon the expertise of COMPUWEATHER to determine what the weather was at the time of the accident, including what factor, if any, sunlight or glare had played in the occurrence. A site-specific analysis of the weather indicated that even though there was no rain occurring at the time of the incident, there was a high degree of cloudiness present. In addition, an analysis of the angle and location of the sun at that moment in time, combined with the direction at which the car was traveling, revealed that sun glare would not have played a factor, even if there had been a small break in the clouds at the time.

Due primarily to the information in the report provided by COMPUWEATHER, the attorney representing the plaintiff was able to work out a very favorable settlement for her client.

A painting company was hired to do work on the outside of a multi-story building located on the lower west side of Manhattan, New York. Scaffolding was constructed on the outside of the building for their painters and maintenance personnel to work on. The scaffolding, when properly constructed, was manufactured to hold up in winds of up to 50 miles per hour.

Three days after the painters began using the scaffolding; it collapsed, injuring two workers. Suit was filed against the manufacturer of the scaffolding, as well as the painting company. The suit claimed negligence on the part of the painting company, for allowing employees to work on a windy day, putting them in a dangerous situation. Attorneys for the defense, presented evidence in pre-trial hearings, which indicated that the wind speeds on the day and time leading up to the accident, were below the threshold levels established by the manufacturer of the equipment. While it was a windy day by some standards, they claimed that it was not excessively so, with the wind speed measured at 25-30 miles per hour out of the northwest.

The law firm representing plaintiffs contacted COMPUWEATHER. An analysis of the weather for that day verified that winds measured at the closest observing sites to the location of the accident were indeed 25-30 miles per hour. But the forensic team at COMPUWEATHER knew that there was more to look at than just the observations. A visit to the location of the scaffolding collapse by one of our meteorologists, revealed that to the west and northwest of the location, across the street from the site of occurrence, were two sets of buildings. And it was the alignment of these buildings that prompted the meteorologist to make a return visit to the site. That return visit was made on a day when the wind was coming from the same direction, and at the same speeds as on the day of the accident. The meteorologist brought along an anemometer, which measures wind speed. Placing the instrument where the scaffolding had been located, what it registered told the story. At the same time that winds were being measured at 30-35 miles per hour at local observing sites, the wind at the accident site was being measured at 45-65 miles per hour! What was happening is that the wind was coming from such a direction, so that it flowed in between the two sets of buildings across the street. The wind was being “forced” in between the buildings, and when this occurs, it accelerates in speed. That is a principle of physics known as The Bernoulli Effect. So while the winds at the observing sites measured one speed, the winds at the exact site of occurrence were quite another story.

Backed with this information from COMPUWEATHER, Plaintiffs attorneys were prepared to go to trial. After disclosure of the information though, a favorable settlement was reached before the matter reached a courtroom.

An auto accident occurred on a road in Riverside County, California when one vehicle crossed the center line and crashed into an oncoming vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. The driver of the car which crossed the center line claimed that he lost control of his vehicle due to high winds. The driver of the other vehicle filed suit. Multiple defendants were named in the suit, including the local municipality. The claim stated that the city in which the accident occurred was negligent in the planning and construction of the road on which the accident took place, in as much as it was an area known to experience Santa Ana winds.

Attorneys representing the insurance carrier which covered the city contacted COMPUWEATHER. An analysis of the weather on the day of the accident was prepared, with emphasis on the winds. The research showed that it had been a day in which Santa Ana winds were coming off the mountainous areas to the east. Since the location of the accident was a number of miles away from the closest wind observing site, the meteorologist estimated the strength of the wind based on those observations as well as the local topography. His research determined that the wind at the time of the accident was coming from the northeast at 50-60 miles per hour. Since the road had been constructed eight years earlier, the meteorologist then did a search of all of the days during that time in which winds were of similar speeds of higher, and from the same northeasterly direction. The conclusion stated that there had been 26 such occurrences during that eight year span.

The attorneys then performed a search of public records. Traffic statistics indicated that an average of 5,500 vehicles use that stretch of road each day. Over the course of the 26 days, that amounted to 143,000 vehicles, each of which was a potential wind-related accident. But on all of those 26 previous days with similar Santa Ana winds, there was not one accident reported.

After presenting this evidence during several pre-trial hearings, it was determined that the city was not negligent, and was thus dropped from the suit.

A 31-year old man sustained injuries after he slipped and fell in the parking lot of a bank in Danbury, Connecticut. The accident took place just before 5:00 pm on a Friday in February. The man was trying to get into the bank before it closed for the day, when he slipped on what he said was a patch of ice. His injuries were severe enough to keep him out of work for several months. The insurance carrier which covered the bank offered $ 12,000 to the man. He did not have health insurance coverage and his medical bills amounted to more than three times that amount. At the advice of his family, he retained an attorney.

Attorneys representing the insurance company disclosed to plaintiff’s attorney a weather report which had been prepared by a company in Connecticut. The report stated that at the time of the accident, the temperature was 33 degrees. In addition, there had been no precipitation on the day of the accident, nor the day before. Two days prior, there had been a snowfall of three inches. The conclusion stated that ice would not have been present at the time of the slip due to the temperature. With his client insistent that there had been ice, plaintiff’s attorney contacted COMPUWEATHER.

The forensic meteorologist from COMPUWEATHER analyzed the weather on the day of the accident and came to a similar conclusion about the temperature. However more information was needed about the exact location of the slip and fall before a final determination of the condition of the ground could be made. The meteorologist made an on-site visit to the bank parking lot. He observed that the spot where the man had fallen was exposed to direct sunlight until around 10:30 am. After that time, it was in the shadow of the building in which the bank was located. This was a critical observation, since the temperature was a key issue. In the presence of direct sunlight, snow can melt in temperatures as cold as about 25 degrees. But when the effect of direct sunlight is lost, moisture as a result of melted snow will re-freeze. Therefore, on the morning of the accident, sunshine along with temperatures rising through the 20s would have produced some melting of the snow on the ground from the storm two days earlier. Evidence showed that the snow had been shoveled off to the side, but not removed from the lot. The COMPUWEATHER meteorologist’s report went on to state that within one hour after the effect of sunlight was lost, any melted snow which had run off onto the sidewalk would have become frozen into a thin, icy surface. This meant that more than five hours passed in between the time that ice formed in the lot, and the time the man slipped. More than ample time to take care of the hazard, argued plaintiff’s attorney.

With the plaintiff’s testimony that he had slipped on ice now given credibility by the COMPUWEATHER report, his attorney was able to work out a more favorable settlement with the insurance company. The amount of the settlement was $110,000.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a man was arrested in connection with a robbery/homicide that occurred in a convenience store. Based on a description given by a witness on the street, the police picked up a man who lived several blocks away from the store. During questioning, the accused man told police that he was innocent and was nowhere near the store at the time the crime took place. But since he had been alone at the time he had no witnesses that could back him up.

At deposition, the defense attorney questioned the witness about how clearly he was able to see the man leaving the store. The witness stated that he had a “clear shot” from where he was standing, and was able to see “everything”. After hearing this, the attorney contacted COMPUWEATHER. The forensic meteorologist in charge of the case performed an analysis of the weather for the entire day with added emphasis on what was occurring at the exact time that the crime took place. His research determined that it was cloudy at the time. Very cloudy in fact, with low-hanging, dark clouds overhead. In addition, a thin layer of fog and haze had been present. Visibility was the key issue. The meteorologist estimated that at the time the crime took place, “good” visibility would have occurred at a distance of 150 feet or less. From 151 feet to 225 feet, visibility would have been “fair”. At distances beyond 225 feet the visibility would have been extremely restricted. The witness was approximately 350 feet from where he saw a man leave the store.

The defense attorney presented this evidence to the Assistant District Attorney handling the case. With little in the way of additional evidence, the testimony of the witness was critical for the prosecution’s case. With that testimony now of questionable credibility, the DAs office dropped the charges against the man. More than two years later a man already in prison for another crime was charged with the robbery and murder at the convenience store. He had made the mistake of bragging to his cellmate about the crime. The cellmate turned him in.

Three days after a storm dropped eight inches of snow across southeastern New York, a 56-year old man slipped and fell in a shopping center parking lot in Westchester County. He sustained injuries to his right hip, shoulder and head as a result of the accident. The man stated that he had slipped on a patch of ice which was present in the parking lot near a large pile of snow which had been created by the plowing of the lot three days prior. His attorney obtained the weather records from the closest observing site to the shopping center, in hopes that it would clearly show a temperature profile that would indicate a melt and re-freeze cycle in between the time the snow ended, and the time that her client slipped. If it showed that, then it could be stated that snow from the built-up pile had melted, run-off and then re-froze into an icy surface. To the dismay of the attorney, the daily temperature records indicated that it had been very cold in the days following the storm. Daytime highs were only in the mid 20s, while overnight lows were in the teens and single digits. So much for the melt/re-freeze theory. Or so it seemed.

The attorney called on the expertise of COMPUWEATHER to help explain how the ice had developed. The meteorologist assigned to the case did a complete analysis of the weather from the day of the snowstorm up through the time of the accident. Using the same data that the attorney had viewed, as well as data from other sources, the explanation for the patch of ice slipped right into place. Simply looking at the high and low temperatures was not sufficient in this particular situation. In the two days after the snow ended, the sky was clear and sunny all day long. This was a key point, as snow…and freshly fallen snow in particular…will begin to melt in temperatures as cold as 24 or 25 degrees when direct sunlight is present. But shortly after sunset, after the effect of direct sunlight is lost, that melted snow will re-freeze very rapidly, while any remaining snow on the ground becomes more hard-packed. In addition, when snow is shoveled or plowed into large piles, compression takes place due to the weight of the snow. This causes snow on the bottom of the pile to compress, and under the right circumstances, to melt.

The analysis by COMPU-WEATHER made it very easy to explain how ice could have formed in the parking lot. With the key point being that 32 degrees is not the “magic number” for snow to melt or water to freeze. Those two things can and usually do, take place at a temperature lower than 32 degrees. The case never came to trial, as the information provided by COMPUWEATHER proved pivotal in securing a favorable settlement.

The body of a man who was reported missing for three days was found on the shore of a public park in Westchester County, New York, which is adjacent to Long Island Sound. Police forensic experts determined that the body had been in the water for about 72 hours, and that trauma to the man’s head was the cause of death, not drowning. Subsequent investigation led to the arrest of a man in connection to the murder.

The District Attorney handling the matter contended that the victim was murdered at a location some distance from where the body was found, and that after being dumped into the water, the body floated and ended up at the location where it was found. The man accused of the crime contended that he was nowhere near that area where the DA postulated the victim was murdered. And in fact he was close to where the body was actually found, at the time that the DA contends he was at the other location.

The attorney defending the accused called upon the expertise of COMPUWEATHER. The Forensic Meteorologist assigned to the case reviewed the facts and decided to enlist the help of one of our in-house marine meteorologists to assist with this case. Working together it was determined that the body could not have been dropped into the water at the site that the DA contended. Analysis of tidal movement, along with the direction and speed of the wind during the time that the body was in the water, clearly indicated that the body could not have floated from where the DA postulated, to the spot where it was found.

Based on this evidence, charges were dropped against the accused. Over time, another man was brought to trial on the murder and convicted of the crime. Testimony from the trial later confirmed that COMPUWEATHER’s findings were correct and accurate regarding the location where the body was dumped into Long Island Sound.

Plaintiff, a woman in her 30s, filed suit against a hospital in southeastern New York, after slipping and falling due to a puddle of water at the entranceway to the building. The woman was entering the building with her boyfriend, who was there undergoing blood tests. Her boyfriend testified that he noticed the puddle at 9:20 am as they were entering the building. They both claimed that the accident occurred as they were leaving, and that it was not raining or snowing at the time of the slip.

Defendant Hospital contended that the accident occurred as plaintiff was entering the building, and that a snowstorm was still in progress at the time. At trial, expert testimony from a COMPUWEATHER forensic meteorologist, confirmed the Hospital’s stance that snow was indeed still falling at 9:20 am, and was part of a storm which had started several hours earlier. The storm came to an end shortly before 10:00 am, which was determined to be after the time that the slip took place.

Verdict came back in favor of defense, based on COMPUWEATHER’s testimony that at the time of the slip, snow was falling, and thus, it was an event in progress.

Plaintiff, a 44-year old physician in Massachusetts, slipped and fell in a parking lot during the winter. She sustained multiple injuries as a result of the fall, and would be unable to perform her normal job functions for an extended period of time. A suit was filed, claiming that the owner of the parking lot as well as the maintenance firm that was hired to remove snow and ice, were negligent in their duties.

During deposition, the physician testified that she slipped and fell on a patch of ice. Attorneys representing the defendants presented evidence in the form of official U.S. Government Certified Weather Documents, which indicated that the temperature leading up to and at the time of the incident was above the freezing mark of 32 degrees. This served to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony that it was ice and not snow that caused her to slip. Her attorney thought otherwise, and called upon the expertise of COMPUWEATHER.

By analyzing the temperature profile from the time of the last snowfall and up through the time of the accident, (including a review of the very same certified data that defense had presented) forensic meteorologists at COMPUWEATHER were able to put the matter on ice. At trial, it was explained to the jury that temperature readings recorded at officially-recognized weather observing sites, such as the one which defense presented as evidence, are taken at a height of 10 meters, or over 30 feet, above the ground. At ground level, and in particular on a dark-colored surface such as a paved parking lot, the temperature will be a few to several degrees colder than at that 30+ foot level where the thermometer sensor is located. So despite the fact that the official temperature was 34-36 degrees leading up to the time of the accident, at ground level it was likely anywhere from 28-32 degrees. As a result of that, the snow which had fallen on the previous day and melted could have easily become frozen, forming a layer of ice in that parking lot at the time of occurrence.

With the plaintiff’s testimony now given credibility by the COMPUWEATHER meteorologist’s explanation, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $2.2 million. Prior to trial, defense had made a settlement offer of $350,000.

A jewelry store in the southwestern part of the United States ran a contest that stipulated if the temperature reached a certain record level on the day of the contest, that every customer who purchased from the store that day would receive free jewelry. The record temperature to be used for the day of the contest was to be 115 degrees. According to the jewelry store, the temperature that afternoon hit 116 degrees, which meant that every single customer was given free jewelry, costing the store some $100,000!!

Prior to the contest, the store had taken out an insurance policy to cover their potential loss, should the record-breaking event occur. And according to the store, it did. They even turned in an “official looking” document to their insurance company, claiming they had a loss which they wanted to be reimbursed for. The claims adjuster for the insurance company contacted COMPUWEATHER and requested a verification of the temperature for that day. The report provided to the insurance company by COMPUWEATHER showed a temperature of only 112 degrees. The reporting station that the jewelry store used in their claim to the insurance company was from a location which is not monitored or controlled by The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since there is no quality control at this site, it is not considered an official site for weather records. Based on the report from COMPUWEATHER, the claim was denied saving the insurance company $100,000.

Plaintiff, a woman in her 40s, filed suit against a horse farm located in the Catskill Mountains of New York. She sustained severe injuries after the horse she was riding on, stepped into a hole located on a riding trail inside the expansive farm, and fell over, causing her to be thrown to the ground. The trail is maintained by the farm, and is open year-round. The incident took place in the month of December.

Defendant Horse Farm contended that they had no knowledge of the existence of the hole, as it was filled and covered by snow and ice from winter storm events which had occurred in the two week period leading up to the day of the incident.

At trial, the COMPUWEATHER forensic meteorologist testified that it had indeed snowed on two different occasions in the 10 day period leading up to the day of occurrence. However, temperatures and degree of sunshine during subsequent days after the last snow event would have been sufficient to cause the amount of snow that had accumulated, to melt away completely. This would have taken place at least 60 hours prior to the date and time of the incident.

Verdict came back in favor of plaintiff, based on COMPUWEATHER’S testimony that more than two days time would have passed in between the time that the hole became visible after the snow melted away, and the time that the accident occurred.

Plaintiff, a woman in her 50s, claimed that she slipped and fell in the alleyway behind the rear entrance to the apartment complex she lived at, in New York. The claim indicated that the cause of the slip was residual ice which had been leftover from a previous storm which had taken place several days beforehand, and that the owner of the apartment building should have had removed. She stated that the ice was covered by a light dusting of snow, which was occurring at the time of the slip.

At trial, Defense called upon the expertise of COMPUWEATHER to provide testimony as to what the weather conditions were leading up to, and at the time of, the slip. Testimony given by the COMPUWEATHER meteorologist indicated that a light accumulation of snow had taken place five days before the day of the slip. Following that snowfall, the combination of sunshine and daily high temperatures in the 20s and 30s, would have been sufficient to cause all of the snow which had fallen from that storm event, to completely melt away. At the time of the slip, the only snow or ice that would have been present was from the snow which was falling at the time.

Based on the fact that the slip was a result of a storm-in-progress, and not from leftover ice from a previous storm, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of the Defendant.

During a performance of a nationally-known traveling circus, a severe thunderstorm developed and moved rapidly across the area. Strong winds from the storm caused a portion of the big-top to collapse, injuring more than a dozen spectators, some of them seriously. Attorneys for the injured plaintiffs filed suit, claiming negligence on the part of the circus company for the way that the big-top tent was put up, and also for failure to monitor forecasts for the possibility of severe weather.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence in the form of surface weather observations from local airports, which indicated that the storms that day produced wind gusts as high as 57 mph. The winds, they claimed, were high, but not high enough to cause the damage and collapse of the circus tent, had it been properly constructed and secured.

Attorneys representing the defendant circus company came to COMPUWEATHER for a more detailed, pin-point look at the storms which occurred on that day in southern Minnesota. Forensic meteorologists went to work, obtaining not only the same data which plaintiff’s attorneys had presented, but also images of Doppler radar for the area, at 15 minute increments from the time the thunderstorm developed, until the time it had passed the area where the circus was being held. And it was the radar images which told the tale. The parts of the line of thunderstorms which passed over the nearby airport observing locations were much weaker than the part that went over the circus location. In addition, that part of the storm underwent “explosive strengthening” no more than five minutes before striking the area. At nearby airports, the highest winds observed were 57 mph. But at the site of the circus, radar measurements and estimates of the downdrafts coming out of the thunderheads indicated a high probability that winds were in excess of 90 mph, and possibly as high as 120 mph. COMPUWEATHER meteorologists examined severe weather advisories and statements issued by The National Weather Service for that afternoon. While they were somewhat accurate in forecasting the chance for severe weather, they were lacking in emphasizing the true severity of the storms which occurred.

Since the storms were of unusual and extraordinary strength, striking with little advance warning, even a tent which was properly constructed and secured (as the circus claims it was) stood little chance of holding up. Based on this information, the two parties were able to reach a settlement prior to trial. The settlement was one which attorneys for the circus termed as “much more favorable for our client, thanks to the detailed information provided by COMPUWEATHER “.

A shipment of hand-crafted, one of a kind furniture arrived from Europe at the Port of Newark, New Jersey, where it was then loaded onto a truck which would take it to its final destination in Memphis, Tennessee. While on the trans-ocean trip, the large container in which the furniture was held had been wrapped in a shrink-wrap-like covering for added protection from the elements. The wrapping was removed for the over-land part of the journey, as safety regulations prohibit driving with such wrapping on the outside of the container being hauled by the truck.

Three days later, when the truck pulled into Memphis and the cargo was being unloaded into a warehouse, several items of furniture were found to have been damaged. It was determined that moisture was the cause. The furniture dealer blamed the trucking company, saying that rain must have entered the inside of the truck enroute. The trucking company checked with its driver who said that he didn’t run into any rain during his trip. The trucking company pointed to the steamship company as the culprit. They denied any wrong-doing, saying that the container was wrapped up tight as a drum during transit. They said it must have happened at the docks in Bremerhaven, Germany, where the furniture was loaded onto the ship. Fingers were being pointed in every direction, with no one taking responsibility. The attorney for the Memphis furniture dealer used his finger to dial COMPUWEATHER.

Since the furniture had been a moving target, forensic meteorologists at COMPUWEATHER first obtained copies of the truckers log, which indicated where the vehicle was at various times and days. By analyzing the weather along the drive route at the specific times of the day the truck was traveling through, the driver’s story was verified: no rain had fallen on the truck during the drive. Since the container had been sealed watertight during the ocean part of the transit, rain could not have entered during that leg of the journey.

COMPUWEATHER then checked the weather in the Port of Bremerhaven on the day the shipment was loaded onto the vessel. Once again, no rain was found. But looking beyond precipitation, the source of the moisture which caused the damage was located. On the day that the furniture was loaded into the container, the weather was very hot and humid. This meant that the air inside of the container was very damp. The container was then sealed tightly, trapping this moisture-laden air inside. During the trans-ocean part of the trip, the cargo ship encountered colder weather, which caused the air inside of the container to cool off rapidly. Since colder air can’t hold as much moisture as warmer air, condensation occurred inside the closed container. That condensed moisture ended up on the furniture, causing damage to several expensive pieces.

A 54 year old man slipped and fell outside of a casino on the Las Vegas strip. He sustained injuries to his leg, shoulder and head. The suit filed by his attorney stated that the man had fallen due to a layer of ice on the sidewalk where the incident took place.

Attorneys representing the insurance carrier which covers the casino sought to find out the source of the ice. After all, this was Las Vegas, a location in a desert area not known for wintry type precipitation. They contacted COMPUWEATHER looking for an explanation. First, the meteorologist assigned to the case did a complete analysis of the weather in Las Vegas on the days leading up to the accident. He determined the weather had been dry, with no precipitation reported at anytime. Ice forming by virtue of rain, snow or sleet was immediately ruled out. After receiving this information, the defense attorney questioned the plaintiff. In deposition, he stated that the source of the water which froze into ice came from a nearby lawn sprinkler which goes on and off automatically. It was cold the night that he fell, so the wayward water from the sprinkler must have become frozen just before he walked across it.

Defense attorneys came back to COMPUWEATHER looking for additional information. The forensic meteorologist working the case did an analysis of the daily high and low temperatures for the preceding 30 days. What he found was that the temperature was indeed cold at the time the slip took place. However despite the 29 degree temperature at the time, it was nearly impossible for the water from the sprinkler to have become frozen. The ground was simply not that cold. Temperatures over the preceding month had dropped into the 20s on a few occasions. But by in large, low temperatures during that time were in the 30s and 40s, along with daytime highs mostly in the 50s and 60s. This was not the type of temperature profile that would lead to a cold ground, which would have been needed in order for water to freeze that night.

Armed with this information, defense refused any offer of settlement presented by plaintiff’s attorney. Eventually, the plaintiff admitted that it may have been just water, and not ice, which he stepped on that evening. With his testimony now lacking credibility, the suit was eventually dropped.

A line of heavy thunderstorms moving across the suburbs of Detroit during the spring of 2001 caused a wall and scaffolding on a construction site to collapse. Several workers were injured as a result of the incident. Their legal consul filed suit, claiming that the construction company should have warned the workers of the impending storms and ordered them off the scaffolding until the dangerous weather passed. Defense attorneys argued that the storm was an act of God and struck suddenly and without warning. It was their contention that the construction company should not be held liable for the workers’ injuries.

Attorneys working on behalf of the plaintiffs sought out expert advice from COMPUWEATHER. The forensic meteorologist assigned to the case began his analysis by examining where and when the line of storms had developed. His research showed that the thunderstorms had started forming 60 minutes before the incident took place and at a distance of about 40 miles west of the construction site. With prior notice the key point, the meteorologist examined the forecasts, watches and warnings which had been issued on that day by the local office of The National Weather Service. The regularly scheduled forecasts stated that there was “a 60% chance of thunderstorms, some of which could produce strong winds”. Ninety minutes before the storms hit, a severe thunderstorm watch had been issued for a large area which included the county in which the construction site was located. In addition, 25 minutes prior to the storm’s arrival at the construction site, a severe thunderstorm warning had been issued for the entire county. The warning gave specific information about the location of the line of storms, how quickly they were moving and in which direction. It also named several towns and cities that were in the path of the storms, one of which was the town the construction site was in.

With evidence clearly indicating that the storms did not hit suddenly and without warning, attorneys for the plaintiffs were in a much better position during settlement talks. Because of key evidence provided by COMPUWEATHER, a settlement was reached which was favorable for the injured workers.

A Tennessee man filed a claim with his insurance company to cover damages to a building he owned. He claimed that the damage took place during a severe thunderstorm. An adjustor came out to take a look at the building and concluded that there was damage which appeared to have been caused by the weather. Part of the roof was missing and damage inside of the building was extensive. The man received a check for just under $97,000. Shortly thereafter the case was flagged for investigation by the insurance company’s subrogation unit. What prompted the investigation was the length of time that the building had been insured prior to the claim being made: three weeks.

The investigator contacted COMPUWEATHER. The forensic meteorologist assigned to the case prepared an analysis of the weather on the day that the building owner stated the storm did its damage. Thunderstorms had occurred on that day, but they were not particularly strong or severe. Doppler radar images, as well as observations from nearby airports, showed that top winds with the storms were only 38 miles per hour. Hardly enough wind to tear part of a roof off. The meteorologist then began to look further back in time, in order to find any occurrences of severe weather during the previous two months. His analysis determined that six weeks prior to the alleged date of the storm damage, severe weather had occurred. On that day, thunderstorms produced straight-line winds of 72 miles per hour along with golf-ball sized hail and torrential downpours of rain.

Armed with this information, the insurance investigator began to look at other claims which had been made in that part of the state. A number of claims had been paid after the event six weeks prior. The investigator spoke with several home and business owners in the area that had filed those claims. What he learned was that the man who made the claim about the damaged building did so after speaking to them. He had purchased the building after the storm damage had occurred. He became keenly interested in the repair work that was occurring on nearby homes and buildings, and found out from the owners about the severe weather which had caused the damage.

The building owner was eventually found guilty of fraud and was forced to pay back the insurance company. He didn’t even own the building at the time that the damage actually took place.

Plaintiffs comprised of 12 homeowners and three business owners in Brooklyn, NY, claimed property and structural damage due to the flooding of their basements after a heavy rainstorm. Defendants, which included the local gas utility and a construction company sub-contracted by the utility, had previously dumped 70 cubic yards of sand in the vicinity of the damaged buildings, which they planned on using in a backfill operation. Plaintiffs claimed that the sand and runoff from the rainstorm, combined with the heavy rain, caused the storm drains to clog up, resulting in the flooded basements. Plaintiffs further contended that the City was negligent in maintaining the storm drains and catch basins.

At trial, defense attorneys called upon COMPUWEATHER meteorologists to examine the weather and explain to the jury what had occurred. By analyzing the magnitude of the rain which fell on the day of the flooding, and comparing it to historical standards, the COMPUWEATHER meteorologist concluded that the event was a “50-year 1-hour storm”. The amount of rain which poured down during a mere one hour’s time could only reasonably be expected to happen in Brooklyn about once every 50 years. Engineers for the City testified that the storm drain system was designed to handle “5-year storms”.

Based on the testimony that the storm was an extraordinary occurrence, the jury vote was 6-0 in favor of the defendants.

We’ve all seen it happen at least once. A grocery store parking lot on a windy day. Empty shopping carts that seem to have a mind of their own. BAM! Dented car door. It happens often, despite the best efforts of store management to dispatch employees outside to corral the wayward carts in a timely fashion.

Shopping carts are one thing, but when a full-sized metal dumpster is the rolling culprit, the damage inflicted can be more substantial. And that’s exactly what happened to the owner of a BMW in the parking lot of a Kash-n-Karry in Florida. She came out of the store to find the dumpster up against the side of her car, along with damage to the passenger-side door, the side panel and window. Even the frame of the vehicle was bent slightly from the force of the 450-pound dumpster hitting it.

The owner of the car filed a damage report with the store, and the report was subsequently sent along to their insurance carrier, which made payment on the claim.

The insurance company’s subrogation unit began an investigation that included a call to COMPUWEATHER. An analysis of the wind indicated that it was strong that day, with gusts going as high as 30 mph when the incident took place. But was that enough wind to cause a heavy dumpster to roll on its own? Further investigation was warranted.

Over the course of the previous several years, the insurance company had processed a number of damage claims stemming from wind-driven shopping carts. Those dates were provided to COMPUWEATHER, and the meteorologist analyzed the wind and weather on those days as well. The report showed that on all of the previous days when cart damage occurred, the wind speed was at least 27 mph. And on a few of the days, winds exceeded 40 miles per hour.

So it was deduced that a wind of at least 25-30 mph was required to cause the much-lighter-weight shopping carts to careen out of control. It didn’t seem likely that a heavy dumpster could be moved by winds of similar speeds.

With weather now ruled out as a possibility, the investigator began looking elsewhere. It was eventually determined that the dumpster had a faulty braking device on its wheels, and that the refuse company had made a pickup during the time that the BMW owner was parked in the lot. When the dumpster was emptied and placed back on the ground, it started rolling because of the faulty brake and ended up colliding with the car. The insurance company recovered what it had paid out from the refuse company.

During a rainstorm, a large tree toppled over. Due to its enormous size and weight,the tree fell over the fence separating two yards and onto the neighbors garage,causing extensive damage to not only the garage and tool shed located next to it, but also to the two vehicles parked inside. Both vehicles were high-end quality and relatively new. The owners of the garage shed and vehicles filed a claim with their insurance company, and received a payout in the amount of $97,000 to cover the loss and damages. Their insurance company then filed suit against the insurance company which covered the homeowner who owned the tree, and received reimbursement for the entire amount. Shortly after that, the subrogation division of the tree-owner’s insurance company started an investigation.

The investigator handling the case contacted COMPUWEATHER.He wanted to know if the amount of rain which occurred on the day the tree fell, was extraordinary and could have played a part in it falling over. While analyzing the weather for that day, the meteorologist assigned to the case noted that rain had fallen intermittently on the 10 days leading up to the day of occurrence. He conveyed this along to the insurance investigator along with a recommendation that a study be performed to determine if the amount of rain that fell over that 10 day period was unusual. Working in conjunction with COMPUWEATHER’S in-house computer technology division, a program was written which would analyze the amount of rain and/or melted down snow equivalent which occurred over each and every ten day period of time, dating back to the year that weather observations first began to be collected at the nearest spot to the point-of-loss. That observing spot began taking observations some 65 years earlier.

In the 10 days leading up to the day the tree fell,a total of 3.12″ of rain had fallen. But was this enough to cause the ground to soften up enough to play a part in the tree falling over? Probably not. The results of the 65 year study indicated that 3.12″ or more of rain over a 10 day period of time, had occurred a total of 247 times. Certainly NOT an unusual occurrence for this location.

Now that weather could be ruled out as a cause, the investigator dug deeper, calling on the knowledge of a tree expert. His examination of the photos determined that the tree was in a weakened state due to decay, and probably should have been removed, or at least pruned back substantially, well before the accident. The insurance company filed claim against the owner, stating that he had been negligent in his care and handling of the tree. A settlement was eventually reached, with the insurance company recouping a substantial amount of what it had paid out.