CompuWeather will be exhibiting at the Rimkus Consulting Group’s 7th Annual 2010 CE Seminar, June 23-24, 2010 at the Tampa Marriott Westshore in Tampa, FL. The annual continuing education seminar is hosted by the Rimkus Consulting Group for insurance personnel and insurance adjusters. Last year’s seminar attracted over 725 people with more anticipated this year. This 2 day event features a wide range of course offerings and a 21 booth vendor expo. We welcome you to stop by our booth and meet our Director of Sales, Jess Hurwitz. Please contact us and let us know if you are CompuWeather client and will be attending the conference by CLICKING HERE.

CompuWeather will be exhibiting at the 2010 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, April 19-20, 2010 at the Eisenhower Hotel and Convention Center in Gettysburg, PA. The annual education seminar is jointly hosted by the Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority (IFPA) and the Greater Pittsburgh and Delaware Valley Chapters of the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU). We welcome you to stop by our booth and meet our Director of Sales, Jess Hurwitz. Please contact us and let us know if you are CompuWeather client and will be attending the conference by CLICKING HERE.

Congratulations to the winners of the $50 Amazon.Com Gift Cards awarded at the Windstorm Insurance Conference, January 25-27, 2010 in Jacksonville, Florida. The following 3 conference attendees are winners from a raffle held in the CompuWeather booth at the show:

Angela Cain, Cain & Associates Consulting, Inc., Mobile, Alabama – $50 Amazon.Com Gift Card

Charles Burkett, Travelers Insurance Company, Wagner, South Carolina – $50 Amazon.Com Gift Card

Michael Meades, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania – $50 Amazon.Com Gift Card

Thank you to all the conference attendees that stopped by the CompuWeather Booth. It was great seeing so many of our wonderful clients at the conference and meeting so many new friends! All attendees of the conference are also eligible to take advantage of the WIND CONFERENCE SHOW SPECIAL good through 2/26/10.

See you next year at the 2011 Windstorm Insurance Conference, January 24-27, 2011 at the Hilton Houston Americas, Houston, Texas.

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.