In the last three issues of The Investigative Engineer, we have introduced you to the subtleties of chimneys, fireplaces, and the developments that could result in large losses due to fires. In addition, we have used past events to illustrate the need for a comprehensive, objective evaluation of chimneys and fireplaces. The evaluation is important in order to make an informed decision when it comes to repairing or replacing chimneys and fireplaces that have been determined to have been involved in the cause of a fire. Equally important is the need for a "second opinion" when it comes to evaluating the need for replacing or removing a "dangerous" wood-burning fireplace with a "safer" gas-log fireplace.

This short article is presented for the adjuster or SIU investigator when dealing with issues related to investigating or adjusting fire claims involving fireplaces and chimneys. The article is written with the assumption that your fire was, in fact, the result of a fire inside the firebox of the fireplace, exiting the system in a location not designed for such. We want to acquaint you with a few of the multitude of issues that should be addressed in a systematic fashion in order to determine ultimate responsibility for the event.

Long before any investigator can determine a manufacturing defect as the cause of a fireplace fire, there is a long list of hypotheses to eliminate and questions to answer. The time and expense up front can save many times more, before the long, arduous, and costly process of destructive testing and civil litigation begins. One of the first places to go in the investigation should be to the owner and/or operator of the fireplace. A number of questions need to be answered.

1. How long have they owned the home, used the fireplace?
2. Was this one of the first fires in the fireplace this season?
3. What is their routine when starting a fire?
4. What do they normally burn in the fireplace?
5. Have they ever burned anything other than dried wood? i.e. green timber, trash, wrapping paper, candles, etc.
6. How often do they use the fireplace?
7. How often do they have it cleaned and serviced?
8. Who services the fireplace and are they certified by a recognized organization?
9. Have they ever had a previous, uncontrolled fire, in the fireplace?
10. Have there been recent repairs to the fireplace, or surrounding portions of the structure of the home?
11. Has there been recent damage to the fireplace due to weather, remodel, or wildlife?
12. Is there a history of birds or squirrels nesting in the fireplace, home, or attic?

These are just a few questions for the occupant/homeowner, but need to be addressed to determine if other factors may have played a role in the event.

The next part of the investigation should be to physically examine the components of the fireplace and determine if any parts of the system are in conflict with manufacturer's recommendations, local building codes, and the National Fire Protection Associations 211; Standards for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents, and Solid Fuel-Burning Appliances. Eliminating the possibility of any violation of one, or likely all, of the governing recommendations and codes is paramount before riding the "manufacturing-defect train." Recent cases evaluated by this office have exposed a number of potential causes of fires and failures that were not eliminated, nor even evaluated, prior to initiation of a manufacturing defect claim.

The lack of a thorough systematic evaluation of potential fire causes can cost your organization far more extensive losses in time and litigation expenses, than the original claim. The expenses can mount if the case of a manufacturing defect claim is not evaluated under the light of all known facts. All facts should then be used to develop the hypotheses needing to be evaluated and a deductive analysis conducted. Through a systematic approach and deductive reasoning, all hypotheses should be tested. A hypothesis must never be discarded only because it is in conflict with a preconceived notion of cause. If a hypothesis exists that is in conflict with a "manufacturing defect" scenario, your investigator has the obligation to make you aware of this conflict so that a prudent decision can be made into the viability of a subrogation claim against a manufacturer.

Recent cases have exposed far more likely cause scenarios never evaluated in developing a manufacturing defect claim. The following findings were in various fireplace claims never addressed prior to a determination of manufacturing defect:

• Improper chimney pipe installation (one case was wrong size, another was upside-down)
• Construction of fires in the firebox, far in excess of design specifications of the manufacturer resulting in damage to refractory walls
• Mechanical damage to the flue liner created during cleaning
• No routine cleaning and maintenance to the fireplace
• Bird nesting material
• Vent pipe of a direct vent fireplace was never connected to the fireplace
• Candles used in the firebox melted down to form a flammable liquid pool fire

In the final analysis, a systematic, objective investigation of the fire cause involving fireplaces, or any other fire loss, is paramount in allowing the adjuster, or SIU investigator to make a prudent decision on subrogation cases.

Copyright 2002 Professional Investigative Engineers. All rights reserved.