A well-known insurance company received a large personal injury claim from a person who experienced a slip and fall in a large amount of snow. The badly injured person claimed that at the time and place the injury occurred there was almost a foot of snow on the ground which was the cause of his accident.  After reviewing the claim, the insurance claim representative decided to verify the amount of snow at the point of loss and make sure the amount of snow present was consistent with their insured’s statement. He went online on the Internet to a commonly used weather web site and attempted to access the historical snow amount for the time and date of the loss. He reviewed the data and he concluded based on his interpretation of the data that there had only been a minor snow event a few days before and that there was no snow cover on the ground on the date of loss for the location where the injury occurred.

The insurance company denied all claims for the injury and told their insured that they could not verify the snow that allegedly was the cause of his injuries. The badly injured individual hired an attorney and sued the insurance company for his medical and legal costs. The insurance company also hired a defense attorney to handle the case. After reviewing the case documents, the defense attorney contacted CompuWeather for a site-specific weather analysis with the results delivered in a phone consultation with the attorney. The question was simply, snow or no snow?

The CompuWeather Meteorologist assigned to the case determined that there was actually a 13″ snow event that ended the day before the accident and that there was 9″- 10″ of snow on the ground when the injury actually occurred. The attorney concluded that this matched up with the plaintiff’s story and recommended to his client (the insurance company) that they move to settle this case quickly and avoid going to trial. A large settlement was accepted and the insurance company suggested to their employee that in the future he should not try to play meteorologist using the Internet but rather consult an expert when dealing with large claims of this type that involve weather.

COMPUWEATHER was recently contacted by the attorneys for a very large construction company in the Midwest United States which was working on a 30 mile road improvement and renovation project on a major interstate. The company planned very carefully for this project which included taking numerous precautions to make sure their work crews would remain safe while working in extreme heat on this job. They were especially concerned with their crews working during the day since the most extreme heat would be experienced during that time. Field managers and workers were provided training on methods of staying hydrated and staying safe when working in extreme heat.

On one evening in July the company dispatched their night crews out to the project site. The temperature during the peak of the day had been well over 100 degrees. At 9 pm the temperature had dropped to almost 80 degrees and this appeared to be one of the “cooler” nights they had seen in a few weeks. The temperature continued to drop a few degrees per hour and made for a very comfortable work environment compared to earlier in the day. Normal precautions were taken to deal with an anticipated 70-80 degree evening and public weather forecasts were checked, which confirmed the conditions would be in that range for the entire work shift.

At 4:15 am ambulances were called to the project site to deal with numerous heat emergencies and injuries for over 50 of their workers including heat exhaustion and extreme dehydration.  Injured workers reported extreme heat after midnight much worse than the predicted 70-80 degrees they were told to expect.  Did the company fail to take the proper precautions, were field managers not properly trained, could negligence be involved – all of these were questions posed by attorneys representing the injured workers.

COMPUWEATHER’s team of forensic meteorologists were retained to investigate why these injuries occurred at night and to determine the temperatures experienced specifically at the job site throughout the night in question. An analysis was conducted and it was confirmed that the temperature at the job site had dropped from a peak of 107 degrees during the day to 78 degrees at midnight and continued to drop to 71 degrees at 2am. Between 2 am and 3am the temperature rose dramatically to 102 degrees where it stayed throughout most of the night. The extreme night temperatures combined with high winds and falling dew points were conditions that led to the unexpected nighttime conditions confirmed by the injured worker’s statements.

COMPUWEATHER concluded that a rare weather phenomenon known as a “heat burst” had taken place at the job site that evening which could not have been anticipated or forecasted. Heat bursts are extremely rare and typically occur at night time. They are characterized by a rapid increase in temperature, a decrease in dew point and gusty winds. The analysis by COMPUWEATHER made it easy to explain the unexpected high heat in the middle of the night. The case never went to court as the information provided by COMPUWEATHER proved pivotal in minimizing and determining the construction company’s liability in this matter.

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.