WEBVTT
00:01.988 --> 00:09.744
[SPEAKER_01]: This is the best insurance law podcast brought to you by best recommended insurance attorneys.
00:09.764 --> 00:11.788
[SPEAKER_02]: Welcome to Best Insurance Law Podcast.
00:11.808 --> 00:15.636
[SPEAKER_02]: The broadcast about timely and important legal issues affecting the insurance industry.
00:16.177 --> 00:19.744
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm John Zoba manager of Best Insurance Professional Resources.
00:19.960 --> 00:36.433
[SPEAKER_02]: We're very pleased to have with us today, Michael Vigareda, from Qualified Member Expert Service Provider SA, Mr. Vigareda received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Penn State University in his Master of Science in Systems Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology.
00:36.751 --> 00:52.651
[SPEAKER_02]: As a mechanical engineer at SCA, Mr. Rigorita's responsibilities include investigation and evaluation of product performance, functionality, intended design, machine guarding, and compliance with applicable standards for personal injury or property damage matters.
00:53.492 --> 01:04.345
[SPEAKER_02]: Mr. Rigorita is experienced with revealing and interpreting mechanical drawings, CAD models, CAD models, product manuals, requirements, and specifications.
01:04.578 --> 01:16.030
[SPEAKER_02]: Prior to joining SCA, Mr. Rigorita worked for Lockheed Martin on vertical launching system mechanical design requirements, qualification, and integration for domestic and international navies.
01:17.071 --> 01:29.183
[SPEAKER_02]: He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, and is also certified through the National Association of Safety Professionals as a Machine Guarding Specialist.
01:30.084 --> 01:31.986
[SPEAKER_02]: And Michael, very pleased to have you with us today.
01:33.704 --> 01:35.207
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much for very happy to be here.
01:37.151 --> 01:42.762
[SPEAKER_02]: Today's discussion with Michael is centered on engineering methods on product liability cases.
01:43.383 --> 01:52.320
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, since I kicked off product liability, can you just tell our audience a little bit more about your experience and how that specifically applies to product liability?
01:54.595 --> 01:57.339
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure, yes, so I came to S.E.A.
01:57.419 --> 01:58.881
[SPEAKER_00]: from the defense industry.
01:59.302 --> 02:05.171
[SPEAKER_00]: There, I designed, assembled, installed, and tested various mechanical assemblies.
02:05.191 --> 02:11.800
[SPEAKER_00]: So things like electronics and closures or large weldments, test equipment, tooling, and similar assemblies.
02:12.561 --> 02:22.476
[SPEAKER_00]: And then my master's in work in systems engineering allowed me to operate within and also understand the full product lifecycle outside of just designing and building a product
02:23.047 --> 02:28.872
[SPEAKER_00]: So think like cradle to grave from initial planning all the way through a product's life until it's fully retired.
02:28.952 --> 02:32.956
[SPEAKER_00]: So that includes insulation, operation, and maintenance of the product.
02:33.096 --> 02:44.446
[SPEAKER_00]: So adding that all together now as a licensed engineer focused in machine design and as a certified machine garden specialist, I'm able to understand how a product was designed.
02:44.967 --> 02:50.792
[SPEAKER_00]: The math and science behind the product's functions and then how that product should be deployed, safeguarded,
02:51.008 --> 02:55.933
[SPEAKER_00]: and maintain what's it's out in the field in use.
02:55.953 --> 03:00.137
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael Wenshid someone seek out a mechanical engineering product sex for it like yourself.
03:02.360 --> 03:06.644
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so I would say there's two situations where I'm typically contacted.
03:07.165 --> 03:20.138
[SPEAKER_00]: The first is there was an incident with a product and the client needs to answer either what's the product's intended design and or how is it being used during that incident.
03:20.405 --> 03:33.480
[SPEAKER_00]: being an expert in the design process and machine guarding allows me the ability to evaluate and provide inputs on the features, like I said, and functions or safeguards over product, and how that may have impacted what happened in the incident.
03:34.061 --> 03:42.851
[SPEAKER_00]: So then similarly, my time spent managing overall product lifecycle means that I can review and evaluate the artifacts that are generated during the design.
03:42.971 --> 03:49.939
[SPEAKER_00]: So things like drawings, manuals, test results, they may or may not exist for the product
03:50.172 --> 04:05.211
[SPEAKER_00]: So I can review them, comment on the conditions of those artifacts, and how their existence or non-existence could have affected the installation operation or maintenance of the product at the time leading up to or even including the time of the incident.
04:05.972 --> 04:13.721
[SPEAKER_00]: So the second situation would probably just add on to the first, but it's specifically when there's a potential or an alleged product defect claim.
04:14.282 --> 04:16.905
[SPEAKER_00]: So a product defect claim requires that you
04:17.425 --> 04:31.200
[SPEAKER_00]: prove that there was a feasible, safer alternative design while you were designing the product and that that alternative wouldn't have impacted how you use the product or cause additional harm to the user or anybody else who may interact with it.
04:31.401 --> 04:44.175
[SPEAKER_00]: So, because of my experience and I'm able to answer those questions in how the design was generated in the first place and then what documentation may or may not have been generated during that process that could
04:44.780 --> 04:50.005
[SPEAKER_00]: into what was considered during this design process of that specific product and how that would apply to the case.
04:52.807 --> 04:57.191
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, what is the most helpful when investigating a product liability case in particular?
04:59.393 --> 05:14.247
[SPEAKER_00]: So for me, what's most helpful in the situation where there's a reported incident with a product is to keep the site and especially the product itself and as close to the same condition as it was during or immediately following the incident
05:14.750 --> 05:17.714
[SPEAKER_00]: I can get out there and I can document it in that condition.
05:17.875 --> 05:36.462
[SPEAKER_00]: So either tagging the product out or isolating it from similar products at the same site and then making little to no change to the product allows for the most applicable data to be collected and then ensures that that data is at the closest we can get to having been there for the incident.
05:36.822 --> 05:38.665
[SPEAKER_00]: So as an example,
05:39.050 --> 05:46.961
[SPEAKER_00]: There was a case with a piece of material handling equipment that was being used, it was being used on an uneven service and it wound up tipping over causing an injury.
05:47.662 --> 06:02.804
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, at face value, the reported use of the product was potentially in conflict with the product materials and the photos of the equipment that we received prior to exam should know visible issue with the equipment.
06:03.245 --> 06:06.930
[SPEAKER_00]: But thankfully, that piece of equipment
06:07.231 --> 06:21.047
[SPEAKER_00]: And once we were able to get out there and examine it, it turned out that there's a safety quote anti-tip feature that was specifically missing from that piece of equipment in a location that supported the incident narrative that the equipment tipped in that direction.
06:21.648 --> 06:35.905
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, as you can imagine, that's probably important information to know in a case like this, but without having the examination of that specific piece of equipment, that investigation would have relied on either documentation
06:36.222 --> 06:39.286
[SPEAKER_00]: to try and determine the condition of the product at the time of the incident.
06:39.827 --> 06:54.468
[SPEAKER_00]: So while this may have ultimately led to the same answer, it would have taken a lot more time, a lot more analysis, and would be subjected to a lot more scrutiny because there was no physical condition that was available for review.
06:54.588 --> 07:03.040
[SPEAKER_00]: So isolating that piece of equipment immediately following the incident was extremely helpful to completing a timely and accurate analysis.
07:03.290 --> 07:13.339
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me give you another example, but instead now the site was maintained and the failed product was still installed so it couldn't be isolated.
07:14.640 --> 07:31.575
[SPEAKER_00]: I worked on a case there was a lift assembly that had failed while it was in operation so we got photos, we got product materials to review prior to the examination however it wasn't until we got there we were looking at it and taking measurements that we noticed and then we're able to confirm the installation of that assembly.
07:31.876 --> 07:37.845
[SPEAKER_00]: made it so the lift point of where it was lifting was off-center to where it should have been per the drawings.
07:38.426 --> 07:44.776
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, that wasn't visible or measurable without having been there to see them physically measure those features.
07:44.956 --> 07:50.684
[SPEAKER_00]: So that off-center installation, like I said, would cause the lift to operate differently, then was the intended design.
07:51.265 --> 07:58.997
[SPEAKER_00]: So being on site and being able to observe that and take those measurements is the difference between me staying in my analysis,
07:59.230 --> 08:20.496
[SPEAKER_00]: At the different operational condition is a possible thing that happened versus me saying that it's probable that it was operating in a different loaded condition that was designed and again that was because the site itself was isolated so those again just isolating the site or the product very helpful in in product liability analysis.
08:24.307 --> 08:28.593
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, what happens if the product had been replaced fixed or no longer exists?
08:28.853 --> 08:30.796
[SPEAKER_02]: Are there still things that you can do to assist?
08:33.259 --> 08:34.801
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, of course there are, yeah.
08:34.841 --> 08:41.610
[SPEAKER_00]: But sometimes like I said earlier, it just takes a little bit more time to evaluate the different hypotheses that may, that may come up.
08:41.630 --> 08:42.572
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's totally fine.
08:42.592 --> 08:43.573
[SPEAKER_00]: We do that all the time.
08:44.254 --> 08:49.060
[SPEAKER_00]: And in the end, it doesn't diminish those results because it's all done scientifically.
08:49.281 --> 08:53.166
[SPEAKER_00]: So I had a case, there was a bolted assembly
08:53.551 --> 08:54.673
[SPEAKER_00]: while someone was using it.
08:55.353 --> 09:00.961
[SPEAKER_00]: The assembly had been fixed, and I was not able to go out there and do a site examination of the failed condition.
09:01.542 --> 09:08.271
[SPEAKER_00]: I was provided photos, but they looked like they were taken with a flip phone and I didn't really have much data to go off of on the site.
09:08.752 --> 09:13.519
[SPEAKER_00]: But I did have all the product materials, I had drawings, I had models of the assembly.
09:14.059 --> 09:20.368
[SPEAKER_00]: So using that information, I was able to calculate the typical loaded condition of the assembly on the wall.
09:20.669 --> 09:27.478
[SPEAKER_00]: the forces that would have been acting on it at the time of the incident, assuming of course that it was installed per the product materials.
09:27.918 --> 09:33.545
[SPEAKER_00]: And so that data point allows me to do two things, firstly, evaluate the intended design.
09:33.585 --> 09:41.956
[SPEAKER_00]: And then secondly, I can generate hypotheses on how the installation might have changed that could result in that assembly falling off the wall.
09:42.457 --> 09:48.364
[SPEAKER_00]: So that analysis provides me insights into what could have occurred during the incident
09:48.614 --> 09:51.037
[SPEAKER_00]: even being on site to see the failed product.
09:51.898 --> 09:53.319
[SPEAKER_00]: And then here's another example.
09:54.080 --> 09:56.983
[SPEAKER_00]: I like these examples because they're all using calculations.
09:57.103 --> 10:00.968
[SPEAKER_00]: So we've all seen umbrellas rolling down the beach on a windy day, right?
10:01.488 --> 10:07.054
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, we had a case, it wasn't on a beach, but there was an umbrella that was picked up by the wind, then it struck somebody.
10:07.515 --> 10:10.598
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, obviously, the umbrella was picked up and moved.
10:10.738 --> 10:15.904
[SPEAKER_00]: So the installation right before the incident, we can't examine that.
10:16.137 --> 10:23.588
[SPEAKER_00]: we can take a look at it afterwards, and that can provide us data so that I can calculate the most likely installation prior to the incident.
10:24.129 --> 10:34.363
[SPEAKER_00]: The dimensions, the materials, the weights of everything that's involved can be documented, and can tell me what are the forces that are required to pull that umbrella up out of the stand, it was installed in.
10:35.024 --> 10:41.854
[SPEAKER_00]: We can compare that to weather data on the day and question to figure out what installations could have allowed for this incident to occur.
10:42.235 --> 10:43.917
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, was it even possible?
10:44.116 --> 10:46.801
[SPEAKER_00]: to have occurred if it was installed in a particular way.
10:46.841 --> 10:54.194
[SPEAKER_00]: Does the umbrella pole have any evidence of failure that could provide insight into how it's separated?
10:54.594 --> 10:59.483
[SPEAKER_00]: Those are all questions that can be answered without having to wreck knowledge of the installed condition.
10:59.984 --> 11:06.816
[SPEAKER_00]: But rather, like I said, with just design conditions, material properties, and scientific calculations, all done after the fact.
11:09.985 --> 11:19.915
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, so let's take it a step further and say the case doesn't start until years later and there's a little or no information about the site and the failed product is no longer available.
11:21.176 --> 11:23.458
[SPEAKER_02]: What options are there then for analysis to exist.
11:24.819 --> 11:39.874
[SPEAKER_00]: Now again, that's that's also very common and we do do that also all the time, so it's not an issue on being able to do things.
11:40.090 --> 11:42.232
[SPEAKER_00]: model type of product that had failed.
11:42.492 --> 11:49.078
[SPEAKER_00]: So it should be fully representative from a firm fit and function replacement of that failed product to be tested.
11:49.679 --> 11:58.507
[SPEAKER_00]: And then product materials for these products typically include specifications, they outline design or testing standard testing standards.
11:59.008 --> 12:09.878
[SPEAKER_00]: So we can take those testing standards and we can validate that the design itself satisfies or exceeds the design requirements that are specified.
12:10.398 --> 12:14.904
[SPEAKER_00]: For example, say there's a product defect claim on a chair.
12:15.405 --> 12:30.625
[SPEAKER_00]: So the business institutional furniture manufacturers and association or Biffema recommends specific test procedures to conduct on chairs that they need to pass in order to pass from a loading and operating capacity perspectives so they can be sold to the public.
12:30.645 --> 12:40.118
[SPEAKER_00]: So I can take a set of exemplar chairs, which again aren't the ones that actually failed and test them to a standard to make an opinion
12:40.891 --> 12:55.106
[SPEAKER_00]: this could provide me the data to say that the chair that failed is probably a singular defect or a use case isolated to that specific failed chair versus being an inherent design defect in the chairs overall.
12:55.126 --> 13:04.495
[SPEAKER_00]: So at SDA, my colleagues and I have all written and conducted test procedures in our labs using STM, ash ray, other standards and specifications.
13:05.356 --> 13:07.578
[SPEAKER_00]: We use those test results in a lot of different ways.
13:07.839 --> 13:09.160
[SPEAKER_00]: So we've done things like
13:09.460 --> 13:13.204
[SPEAKER_00]: testing to confirm or refute a product's marketing performance.
13:14.345 --> 13:31.363
[SPEAKER_00]: We've also used it to conduct tests to compare or validate the third party testing that's done during the product development process or we can simply run a test that outlines the operational parameters of a product and gives us the general idea on how that product works.
13:31.684 --> 13:39.332
[SPEAKER_00]: So those tests completed on exemplar products again, not the failed product in a standardized
13:39.481 --> 13:45.509
[SPEAKER_00]: can still provide useful data and understanding the possibilities that exist for why a specific product had failed.
13:46.871 --> 13:51.417
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael, those here in Alice are several call for testing that doesn't conform to a specific standard.
13:53.379 --> 13:54.301
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, yeah, yeah.
13:54.321 --> 13:58.486
[SPEAKER_00]: Absolutely, that's sometimes the most fun part of my job.
13:59.828 --> 14:04.053
[SPEAKER_00]: We can try and set up tests in a scenario that recreates specific conditions.
14:04.714 --> 14:08.239
[SPEAKER_00]: And that can be very helpful in our product liability
14:08.455 --> 14:20.486
[SPEAKER_00]: So it can show me exactly what items in the product need to be either modified or removed or even overridden to create the reported scenario that's being alleged in the incident.
14:20.506 --> 14:29.255
[SPEAKER_00]: So the most important thing about testing in that case would be to fully document it so that it's observable and repeatable because that's what you need to run a scientific analysis.
14:29.775 --> 14:36.842
[SPEAKER_00]: So as an example, we had a claim where there was somebody who was burned with flames allegedly shot out of a portable stove.
14:37.278 --> 14:46.128
[SPEAKER_00]: So in the safety of our lab, we were able to test the stove's conditions, burner settings, and then durations, the knobs were open, and that would try and answer for us.
14:46.289 --> 14:50.153
[SPEAKER_00]: What if anything could cause flames to quote, shoot out of the stove?
14:50.754 --> 15:00.145
[SPEAKER_00]: And so even if we can't recreate the condition or the failure during those tests, that data is still very useful and can be used many different ways in the analysis.
15:00.886 --> 15:01.767
[SPEAKER_00]: We can also do,
15:03.029 --> 15:09.875
[SPEAKER_00]: like simple non-standard tests in the lab to attain the component properties to exist in those analyses.
15:09.955 --> 15:20.424
[SPEAKER_00]: So just because something is non-standard, when I say it doesn't mean it's not scientific, but rather it just doesn't meet a specific standard, like an ASTM standard or something like that.
15:20.444 --> 15:32.074
[SPEAKER_00]: And so if I reference back to my example about that bolted wall assembly, that fell, I was able to use the models in the specifications that are available to determine how that assembly
15:32.729 --> 15:38.034
[SPEAKER_00]: But what I really needed was just the weight and the center of gravity of the assembly to do those calculations.
15:38.554 --> 15:48.042
[SPEAKER_00]: So in the case that I can't find that model on the internet or through the product specifications, I have in the past taken an exemplar product into a lab.
15:48.383 --> 15:55.389
[SPEAKER_00]: I can use multiple scales and various orientations to determine where the center of gravity on that piece of equipment is.
15:56.049 --> 16:02.415
[SPEAKER_00]: And then with those physical measurements taken, those calculations that I talked about
16:02.885 --> 16:08.630
[SPEAKER_00]: be previously completed, and in this case, would have been without the design materials.
16:08.670 --> 16:10.052
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's still very helpful.
16:10.372 --> 16:21.602
[SPEAKER_00]: And so bottom line is I find that a lab type interaction non-standard or otherwise with an exemplar type product is extremely helpful during forensic investigations.
16:22.183 --> 16:31.491
[SPEAKER_00]: And then in my experience, it provides me the most comprehensive way I can think of to understand the functions of a product, how someone would interact
16:31.707 --> 16:34.791
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's invaluable when you're doing these types of analyses.
16:39.176 --> 16:42.260
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael, this was a terrific discussion on product liability cases.
16:42.661 --> 16:49.389
[SPEAKER_02]: So what is the final takeaway he would like our listeners to have from our discussion today?
16:49.409 --> 16:59.942
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think I would just end by saying there's so many different products out there and that means there are equally just as many standards or specifications or tests.
17:00.260 --> 17:03.023
[SPEAKER_00]: test that exists that people may not even be aware of.
17:03.964 --> 17:09.770
[SPEAKER_00]: Not to mention all the math and science that goes into the design of a product itself, it can be challenging to understand.
17:10.431 --> 17:20.882
[SPEAKER_00]: So if someone wanted to spit all ideas on how to evaluate and incident, a product defect claim, or even a previous case, I'd offer myself up as a resource to have those conversations.
17:21.303 --> 17:30.132
[SPEAKER_00]: It's my job to know how a product could be evaluated and then also the pros and cons of that evaluation in the analysis.
17:30.331 --> 17:38.504
[SPEAKER_00]: doing a calculation or a simulation or like I said, even that's case scenario a test to evaluate that situation in a scientific way.
17:38.644 --> 17:42.350
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm I'm a happy guy and that's that's kind of my perfect day at work.
17:42.370 --> 17:50.182
[SPEAKER_00]: So I'd like to thank you and the listeners for this opportunity and I'm just looking forward to any conversations that may stem from this in the future.
17:53.067 --> 17:53.948
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael terrific job.
17:53.988 --> 17:55.110
[SPEAKER_02]: Thanks so much for joining us today.
17:56.312 --> 17:57.233
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very
17:58.242 --> 18:05.832
[SPEAKER_02]: You just listen to Michael Vigareda from Qualified Member Expert Service Provider SCA, and special thanks to today's producer Frank Bowenkel.
18:06.533 --> 18:11.280
[SPEAKER_02]: If thank you all for joining us for Best Insurance Law Podcast to subscribe to the Saudi program.
18:11.320 --> 18:16.187
[SPEAKER_02]: Go to our webpage www.ambest.com slash professional resources.
18:16.767 --> 18:24.037
[SPEAKER_02]: If you have any suggestions for a future topic regarding an insurance law case or issue, please email us at lawpodcast.ambest.com.
18:24.618 --> 18:26.781
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm John Zova, and now the message.
18:38.843 --> 18:50.564
[SPEAKER_01]: The Best Insurance Professional Resources features valuable insurance industry content, including searchable profiles of client-recommended insurance attorneys, adjusters, and expert service providers.
18:51.265 --> 19:01.122
[SPEAKER_01]: For a to you by AMBEST, known worldwide as a respected source of insurance industry news and information, visit AMBEST.com slash claims resource.
00:01.988 --> 00:09.744
[SPEAKER_01]: This is the best insurance law podcast brought to you by best recommended insurance attorneys.
00:09.764 --> 00:11.788
[SPEAKER_02]: Welcome to Best Insurance Law Podcast.
00:11.808 --> 00:15.636
[SPEAKER_02]: The broadcast about timely and important legal issues affecting the insurance industry.
00:16.177 --> 00:19.744
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm John Zoba manager of Best Insurance Professional Resources.
00:19.960 --> 00:36.433
[SPEAKER_02]: We're very pleased to have with us today, Michael Vigareda, from Qualified Member Expert Service Provider SA, Mr. Vigareda received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Penn State University in his Master of Science in Systems Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology.
00:36.751 --> 00:52.651
[SPEAKER_02]: As a mechanical engineer at SCA, Mr. Rigorita's responsibilities include investigation and evaluation of product performance, functionality, intended design, machine guarding, and compliance with applicable standards for personal injury or property damage matters.
00:53.492 --> 01:04.345
[SPEAKER_02]: Mr. Rigorita is experienced with revealing and interpreting mechanical drawings, CAD models, CAD models, product manuals, requirements, and specifications.
01:04.578 --> 01:16.030
[SPEAKER_02]: Prior to joining SCA, Mr. Rigorita worked for Lockheed Martin on vertical launching system mechanical design requirements, qualification, and integration for domestic and international navies.
01:17.071 --> 01:29.183
[SPEAKER_02]: He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Testing Materials, and is also certified through the National Association of Safety Professionals as a Machine Guarding Specialist.
01:30.084 --> 01:31.986
[SPEAKER_02]: And Michael, very pleased to have you with us today.
01:33.704 --> 01:35.207
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much for very happy to be here.
01:37.151 --> 01:42.762
[SPEAKER_02]: Today's discussion with Michael is centered on engineering methods on product liability cases.
01:43.383 --> 01:52.320
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, since I kicked off product liability, can you just tell our audience a little bit more about your experience and how that specifically applies to product liability?
01:54.595 --> 01:57.339
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure, yes, so I came to S.E.A.
01:57.419 --> 01:58.881
[SPEAKER_00]: from the defense industry.
01:59.302 --> 02:05.171
[SPEAKER_00]: There, I designed, assembled, installed, and tested various mechanical assemblies.
02:05.191 --> 02:11.800
[SPEAKER_00]: So things like electronics and closures or large weldments, test equipment, tooling, and similar assemblies.
02:12.561 --> 02:22.476
[SPEAKER_00]: And then my master's in work in systems engineering allowed me to operate within and also understand the full product lifecycle outside of just designing and building a product
02:23.047 --> 02:28.872
[SPEAKER_00]: So think like cradle to grave from initial planning all the way through a product's life until it's fully retired.
02:28.952 --> 02:32.956
[SPEAKER_00]: So that includes insulation, operation, and maintenance of the product.
02:33.096 --> 02:44.446
[SPEAKER_00]: So adding that all together now as a licensed engineer focused in machine design and as a certified machine garden specialist, I'm able to understand how a product was designed.
02:44.967 --> 02:50.792
[SPEAKER_00]: The math and science behind the product's functions and then how that product should be deployed, safeguarded,
02:51.008 --> 02:55.933
[SPEAKER_00]: and maintain what's it's out in the field in use.
02:55.953 --> 03:00.137
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael Wenshid someone seek out a mechanical engineering product sex for it like yourself.
03:02.360 --> 03:06.644
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so I would say there's two situations where I'm typically contacted.
03:07.165 --> 03:20.138
[SPEAKER_00]: The first is there was an incident with a product and the client needs to answer either what's the product's intended design and or how is it being used during that incident.
03:20.405 --> 03:33.480
[SPEAKER_00]: being an expert in the design process and machine guarding allows me the ability to evaluate and provide inputs on the features, like I said, and functions or safeguards over product, and how that may have impacted what happened in the incident.
03:34.061 --> 03:42.851
[SPEAKER_00]: So then similarly, my time spent managing overall product lifecycle means that I can review and evaluate the artifacts that are generated during the design.
03:42.971 --> 03:49.939
[SPEAKER_00]: So things like drawings, manuals, test results, they may or may not exist for the product
03:50.172 --> 04:05.211
[SPEAKER_00]: So I can review them, comment on the conditions of those artifacts, and how their existence or non-existence could have affected the installation operation or maintenance of the product at the time leading up to or even including the time of the incident.
04:05.972 --> 04:13.721
[SPEAKER_00]: So the second situation would probably just add on to the first, but it's specifically when there's a potential or an alleged product defect claim.
04:14.282 --> 04:16.905
[SPEAKER_00]: So a product defect claim requires that you
04:17.425 --> 04:31.200
[SPEAKER_00]: prove that there was a feasible, safer alternative design while you were designing the product and that that alternative wouldn't have impacted how you use the product or cause additional harm to the user or anybody else who may interact with it.
04:31.401 --> 04:44.175
[SPEAKER_00]: So, because of my experience and I'm able to answer those questions in how the design was generated in the first place and then what documentation may or may not have been generated during that process that could
04:44.780 --> 04:50.005
[SPEAKER_00]: into what was considered during this design process of that specific product and how that would apply to the case.
04:52.807 --> 04:57.191
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, what is the most helpful when investigating a product liability case in particular?
04:59.393 --> 05:14.247
[SPEAKER_00]: So for me, what's most helpful in the situation where there's a reported incident with a product is to keep the site and especially the product itself and as close to the same condition as it was during or immediately following the incident
05:14.750 --> 05:17.714
[SPEAKER_00]: I can get out there and I can document it in that condition.
05:17.875 --> 05:36.462
[SPEAKER_00]: So either tagging the product out or isolating it from similar products at the same site and then making little to no change to the product allows for the most applicable data to be collected and then ensures that that data is at the closest we can get to having been there for the incident.
05:36.822 --> 05:38.665
[SPEAKER_00]: So as an example,
05:39.050 --> 05:46.961
[SPEAKER_00]: There was a case with a piece of material handling equipment that was being used, it was being used on an uneven service and it wound up tipping over causing an injury.
05:47.662 --> 06:02.804
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, at face value, the reported use of the product was potentially in conflict with the product materials and the photos of the equipment that we received prior to exam should know visible issue with the equipment.
06:03.245 --> 06:06.930
[SPEAKER_00]: But thankfully, that piece of equipment
06:07.231 --> 06:21.047
[SPEAKER_00]: And once we were able to get out there and examine it, it turned out that there's a safety quote anti-tip feature that was specifically missing from that piece of equipment in a location that supported the incident narrative that the equipment tipped in that direction.
06:21.648 --> 06:35.905
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, as you can imagine, that's probably important information to know in a case like this, but without having the examination of that specific piece of equipment, that investigation would have relied on either documentation
06:36.222 --> 06:39.286
[SPEAKER_00]: to try and determine the condition of the product at the time of the incident.
06:39.827 --> 06:54.468
[SPEAKER_00]: So while this may have ultimately led to the same answer, it would have taken a lot more time, a lot more analysis, and would be subjected to a lot more scrutiny because there was no physical condition that was available for review.
06:54.588 --> 07:03.040
[SPEAKER_00]: So isolating that piece of equipment immediately following the incident was extremely helpful to completing a timely and accurate analysis.
07:03.290 --> 07:13.339
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me give you another example, but instead now the site was maintained and the failed product was still installed so it couldn't be isolated.
07:14.640 --> 07:31.575
[SPEAKER_00]: I worked on a case there was a lift assembly that had failed while it was in operation so we got photos, we got product materials to review prior to the examination however it wasn't until we got there we were looking at it and taking measurements that we noticed and then we're able to confirm the installation of that assembly.
07:31.876 --> 07:37.845
[SPEAKER_00]: made it so the lift point of where it was lifting was off-center to where it should have been per the drawings.
07:38.426 --> 07:44.776
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, that wasn't visible or measurable without having been there to see them physically measure those features.
07:44.956 --> 07:50.684
[SPEAKER_00]: So that off-center installation, like I said, would cause the lift to operate differently, then was the intended design.
07:51.265 --> 07:58.997
[SPEAKER_00]: So being on site and being able to observe that and take those measurements is the difference between me staying in my analysis,
07:59.230 --> 08:20.496
[SPEAKER_00]: At the different operational condition is a possible thing that happened versus me saying that it's probable that it was operating in a different loaded condition that was designed and again that was because the site itself was isolated so those again just isolating the site or the product very helpful in in product liability analysis.
08:24.307 --> 08:28.593
[SPEAKER_02]: So Michael, what happens if the product had been replaced fixed or no longer exists?
08:28.853 --> 08:30.796
[SPEAKER_02]: Are there still things that you can do to assist?
08:33.259 --> 08:34.801
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, of course there are, yeah.
08:34.841 --> 08:41.610
[SPEAKER_00]: But sometimes like I said earlier, it just takes a little bit more time to evaluate the different hypotheses that may, that may come up.
08:41.630 --> 08:42.572
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's totally fine.
08:42.592 --> 08:43.573
[SPEAKER_00]: We do that all the time.
08:44.254 --> 08:49.060
[SPEAKER_00]: And in the end, it doesn't diminish those results because it's all done scientifically.
08:49.281 --> 08:53.166
[SPEAKER_00]: So I had a case, there was a bolted assembly
08:53.551 --> 08:54.673
[SPEAKER_00]: while someone was using it.
08:55.353 --> 09:00.961
[SPEAKER_00]: The assembly had been fixed, and I was not able to go out there and do a site examination of the failed condition.
09:01.542 --> 09:08.271
[SPEAKER_00]: I was provided photos, but they looked like they were taken with a flip phone and I didn't really have much data to go off of on the site.
09:08.752 --> 09:13.519
[SPEAKER_00]: But I did have all the product materials, I had drawings, I had models of the assembly.
09:14.059 --> 09:20.368
[SPEAKER_00]: So using that information, I was able to calculate the typical loaded condition of the assembly on the wall.
09:20.669 --> 09:27.478
[SPEAKER_00]: the forces that would have been acting on it at the time of the incident, assuming of course that it was installed per the product materials.
09:27.918 --> 09:33.545
[SPEAKER_00]: And so that data point allows me to do two things, firstly, evaluate the intended design.
09:33.585 --> 09:41.956
[SPEAKER_00]: And then secondly, I can generate hypotheses on how the installation might have changed that could result in that assembly falling off the wall.
09:42.457 --> 09:48.364
[SPEAKER_00]: So that analysis provides me insights into what could have occurred during the incident
09:48.614 --> 09:51.037
[SPEAKER_00]: even being on site to see the failed product.
09:51.898 --> 09:53.319
[SPEAKER_00]: And then here's another example.
09:54.080 --> 09:56.983
[SPEAKER_00]: I like these examples because they're all using calculations.
09:57.103 --> 10:00.968
[SPEAKER_00]: So we've all seen umbrellas rolling down the beach on a windy day, right?
10:01.488 --> 10:07.054
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, we had a case, it wasn't on a beach, but there was an umbrella that was picked up by the wind, then it struck somebody.
10:07.515 --> 10:10.598
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, obviously, the umbrella was picked up and moved.
10:10.738 --> 10:15.904
[SPEAKER_00]: So the installation right before the incident, we can't examine that.
10:16.137 --> 10:23.588
[SPEAKER_00]: we can take a look at it afterwards, and that can provide us data so that I can calculate the most likely installation prior to the incident.
10:24.129 --> 10:34.363
[SPEAKER_00]: The dimensions, the materials, the weights of everything that's involved can be documented, and can tell me what are the forces that are required to pull that umbrella up out of the stand, it was installed in.
10:35.024 --> 10:41.854
[SPEAKER_00]: We can compare that to weather data on the day and question to figure out what installations could have allowed for this incident to occur.
10:42.235 --> 10:43.917
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, was it even possible?
10:44.116 --> 10:46.801
[SPEAKER_00]: to have occurred if it was installed in a particular way.
10:46.841 --> 10:54.194
[SPEAKER_00]: Does the umbrella pole have any evidence of failure that could provide insight into how it's separated?
10:54.594 --> 10:59.483
[SPEAKER_00]: Those are all questions that can be answered without having to wreck knowledge of the installed condition.
10:59.984 --> 11:06.816
[SPEAKER_00]: But rather, like I said, with just design conditions, material properties, and scientific calculations, all done after the fact.
11:09.985 --> 11:19.915
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay, so let's take it a step further and say the case doesn't start until years later and there's a little or no information about the site and the failed product is no longer available.
11:21.176 --> 11:23.458
[SPEAKER_02]: What options are there then for analysis to exist.
11:24.819 --> 11:39.874
[SPEAKER_00]: Now again, that's that's also very common and we do do that also all the time, so it's not an issue on being able to do things.
11:40.090 --> 11:42.232
[SPEAKER_00]: model type of product that had failed.
11:42.492 --> 11:49.078
[SPEAKER_00]: So it should be fully representative from a firm fit and function replacement of that failed product to be tested.
11:49.679 --> 11:58.507
[SPEAKER_00]: And then product materials for these products typically include specifications, they outline design or testing standard testing standards.
11:59.008 --> 12:09.878
[SPEAKER_00]: So we can take those testing standards and we can validate that the design itself satisfies or exceeds the design requirements that are specified.
12:10.398 --> 12:14.904
[SPEAKER_00]: For example, say there's a product defect claim on a chair.
12:15.405 --> 12:30.625
[SPEAKER_00]: So the business institutional furniture manufacturers and association or Biffema recommends specific test procedures to conduct on chairs that they need to pass in order to pass from a loading and operating capacity perspectives so they can be sold to the public.
12:30.645 --> 12:40.118
[SPEAKER_00]: So I can take a set of exemplar chairs, which again aren't the ones that actually failed and test them to a standard to make an opinion
12:40.891 --> 12:55.106
[SPEAKER_00]: this could provide me the data to say that the chair that failed is probably a singular defect or a use case isolated to that specific failed chair versus being an inherent design defect in the chairs overall.
12:55.126 --> 13:04.495
[SPEAKER_00]: So at SDA, my colleagues and I have all written and conducted test procedures in our labs using STM, ash ray, other standards and specifications.
13:05.356 --> 13:07.578
[SPEAKER_00]: We use those test results in a lot of different ways.
13:07.839 --> 13:09.160
[SPEAKER_00]: So we've done things like
13:09.460 --> 13:13.204
[SPEAKER_00]: testing to confirm or refute a product's marketing performance.
13:14.345 --> 13:31.363
[SPEAKER_00]: We've also used it to conduct tests to compare or validate the third party testing that's done during the product development process or we can simply run a test that outlines the operational parameters of a product and gives us the general idea on how that product works.
13:31.684 --> 13:39.332
[SPEAKER_00]: So those tests completed on exemplar products again, not the failed product in a standardized
13:39.481 --> 13:45.509
[SPEAKER_00]: can still provide useful data and understanding the possibilities that exist for why a specific product had failed.
13:46.871 --> 13:51.417
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael, those here in Alice are several call for testing that doesn't conform to a specific standard.
13:53.379 --> 13:54.301
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, yeah, yeah.
13:54.321 --> 13:58.486
[SPEAKER_00]: Absolutely, that's sometimes the most fun part of my job.
13:59.828 --> 14:04.053
[SPEAKER_00]: We can try and set up tests in a scenario that recreates specific conditions.
14:04.714 --> 14:08.239
[SPEAKER_00]: And that can be very helpful in our product liability
14:08.455 --> 14:20.486
[SPEAKER_00]: So it can show me exactly what items in the product need to be either modified or removed or even overridden to create the reported scenario that's being alleged in the incident.
14:20.506 --> 14:29.255
[SPEAKER_00]: So the most important thing about testing in that case would be to fully document it so that it's observable and repeatable because that's what you need to run a scientific analysis.
14:29.775 --> 14:36.842
[SPEAKER_00]: So as an example, we had a claim where there was somebody who was burned with flames allegedly shot out of a portable stove.
14:37.278 --> 14:46.128
[SPEAKER_00]: So in the safety of our lab, we were able to test the stove's conditions, burner settings, and then durations, the knobs were open, and that would try and answer for us.
14:46.289 --> 14:50.153
[SPEAKER_00]: What if anything could cause flames to quote, shoot out of the stove?
14:50.754 --> 15:00.145
[SPEAKER_00]: And so even if we can't recreate the condition or the failure during those tests, that data is still very useful and can be used many different ways in the analysis.
15:00.886 --> 15:01.767
[SPEAKER_00]: We can also do,
15:03.029 --> 15:09.875
[SPEAKER_00]: like simple non-standard tests in the lab to attain the component properties to exist in those analyses.
15:09.955 --> 15:20.424
[SPEAKER_00]: So just because something is non-standard, when I say it doesn't mean it's not scientific, but rather it just doesn't meet a specific standard, like an ASTM standard or something like that.
15:20.444 --> 15:32.074
[SPEAKER_00]: And so if I reference back to my example about that bolted wall assembly, that fell, I was able to use the models in the specifications that are available to determine how that assembly
15:32.729 --> 15:38.034
[SPEAKER_00]: But what I really needed was just the weight and the center of gravity of the assembly to do those calculations.
15:38.554 --> 15:48.042
[SPEAKER_00]: So in the case that I can't find that model on the internet or through the product specifications, I have in the past taken an exemplar product into a lab.
15:48.383 --> 15:55.389
[SPEAKER_00]: I can use multiple scales and various orientations to determine where the center of gravity on that piece of equipment is.
15:56.049 --> 16:02.415
[SPEAKER_00]: And then with those physical measurements taken, those calculations that I talked about
16:02.885 --> 16:08.630
[SPEAKER_00]: be previously completed, and in this case, would have been without the design materials.
16:08.670 --> 16:10.052
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's still very helpful.
16:10.372 --> 16:21.602
[SPEAKER_00]: And so bottom line is I find that a lab type interaction non-standard or otherwise with an exemplar type product is extremely helpful during forensic investigations.
16:22.183 --> 16:31.491
[SPEAKER_00]: And then in my experience, it provides me the most comprehensive way I can think of to understand the functions of a product, how someone would interact
16:31.707 --> 16:34.791
[SPEAKER_00]: And that's invaluable when you're doing these types of analyses.
16:39.176 --> 16:42.260
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael, this was a terrific discussion on product liability cases.
16:42.661 --> 16:49.389
[SPEAKER_02]: So what is the final takeaway he would like our listeners to have from our discussion today?
16:49.409 --> 16:59.942
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think I would just end by saying there's so many different products out there and that means there are equally just as many standards or specifications or tests.
17:00.260 --> 17:03.023
[SPEAKER_00]: test that exists that people may not even be aware of.
17:03.964 --> 17:09.770
[SPEAKER_00]: Not to mention all the math and science that goes into the design of a product itself, it can be challenging to understand.
17:10.431 --> 17:20.882
[SPEAKER_00]: So if someone wanted to spit all ideas on how to evaluate and incident, a product defect claim, or even a previous case, I'd offer myself up as a resource to have those conversations.
17:21.303 --> 17:30.132
[SPEAKER_00]: It's my job to know how a product could be evaluated and then also the pros and cons of that evaluation in the analysis.
17:30.331 --> 17:38.504
[SPEAKER_00]: doing a calculation or a simulation or like I said, even that's case scenario a test to evaluate that situation in a scientific way.
17:38.644 --> 17:42.350
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm I'm a happy guy and that's that's kind of my perfect day at work.
17:42.370 --> 17:50.182
[SPEAKER_00]: So I'd like to thank you and the listeners for this opportunity and I'm just looking forward to any conversations that may stem from this in the future.
17:53.067 --> 17:53.948
[SPEAKER_02]: Michael terrific job.
17:53.988 --> 17:55.110
[SPEAKER_02]: Thanks so much for joining us today.
17:56.312 --> 17:57.233
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very
17:58.242 --> 18:05.832
[SPEAKER_02]: You just listen to Michael Vigareda from Qualified Member Expert Service Provider SCA, and special thanks to today's producer Frank Bowenkel.
18:06.533 --> 18:11.280
[SPEAKER_02]: If thank you all for joining us for Best Insurance Law Podcast to subscribe to the Saudi program.
18:11.320 --> 18:16.187
[SPEAKER_02]: Go to our webpage www.ambest.com slash professional resources.
18:16.767 --> 18:24.037
[SPEAKER_02]: If you have any suggestions for a future topic regarding an insurance law case or issue, please email us at lawpodcast.ambest.com.
18:24.618 --> 18:26.781
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm John Zova, and now the message.
18:38.843 --> 18:50.564
[SPEAKER_01]: The Best Insurance Professional Resources features valuable insurance industry content, including searchable profiles of client-recommended insurance attorneys, adjusters, and expert service providers.
18:51.265 --> 19:01.122
[SPEAKER_01]: For a to you by AMBEST, known worldwide as a respected source of insurance industry news and information, visit AMBEST.com slash claims resource.
