| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cheryl Joyce
USA
45 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2003 : 20:17:29
|
"Occurrence" means an accident, including exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage during the policy period. "Property damage" means injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of the property. ----Coverage A(Dwelling ) and Coverage B((personal property) - We insure against physical loss to the property described in Coverage A (dwelling and Coverage B(personal Property ) caused by a peril listed below, unless the loss is excluded in Section 1-Exclusions -- yatta-yatta-yatta goes on to list the specified perils. That is according to HOA policy language. Just for discussion, let's leave coverage B out, as that does not seem to be an involvement or issue.
The HO-B has the exact definitions for Occurrence and Property Damage, the Peril Insured Against for this is similar, stating, We insure against all risks of physical loss to the property described in Section 1 Property Coverage, Coverage A (Dwelling) unless the loss is excluded in Section I Exclusions.
Key words to consider here are "Occurrence" --"exposure to conditions". -"during the policy period" Insures for " Physical loss to property damage" "covered peril -explosion". ---------What a doctor does is look at everything that it "is not" and rules everything out before saying what "it is". I guess we could call Erin Brockavich for a little "contract enforcement", eah??
The structures, this past week were in actual cities where pieces of debris were retrieved, these cities are in the debris zones. (not considering any fallen debris - that would be a different cause - different issue).
I certainly consider the soil / slab differential movement and landscape all which will affect the integrity of the structure but not limited to those considerations. I say nothing to anyone except make my observation and take my photos, for my own research. Oh yeah, do what I was sent to inspect in the original assignment too (that would be important).
I am very confident of making an educated determination of old and new cracks, separations of trim, paint flake, cabinets which have slight separation from wall sheetrock and ceiling, corner bead exposure show the crack edge and all the evidence that points to my questioning of this issue, stemming from my constant experience and dealings with professional engineers and other highly qualified personnel in our daily job encounters (we learn so much - it is like a free education if you use it right).
I have worked every day for the past 9 years as a field adjuster with property claims my specialty (multi-line adjuster is my license designation). I have worked $0.00 to $3,000,000.00 in individual claims. I have not found a situation that I was not able to resolve, yet. I worked the 94 Northridge EQ and recognize some of the same type damages. (Hey, it's not Tom's or my files that Roy and Lee are out there in Cali reworking - just kidding - but not that I know of - no subpoenas). I am not trying to build up what I "think" I know or to impress anyone here. I'm curious- I have always done the right thing for all parties involved. I base each and every claim on it's own merits. I keep seeing the same thing over and over - over a wide spread area with all evidence that it is "new" damages. There comes a point when you put 2 & 2 together and locate the common denominator. (This is not meant to promote my personal self worth - I just think that if I make a point or inquiry as large as this that I should support my experience for considering these issue - there are some flakes in our field. Then again, we certainly run into some flakes too.)
We, as adjusters, analyze cause and effect and then determine the amount of money it will take to put it back to it's pre-loss condition. That is how we determine a "covered loss" and "estimate the cost". We have even been known to consult someone with letters after their name to support our findings - you know a "deemed expert".
Any "expert's out there care to contribute their learned knowledge and experience" for those of us with inquiring minds?
I located my explosion file where black powder had been stored and blew the entire underground bunker into tiny little pieces leaving a 22 foot deep hole in the earth. Of course there was resulting damages for miles due to the "shockwave" resulting from this explosion. Maybe that is why I recognize these resulting conditions - because I have been there - done that. The most impressive resulting damages were the double steel doors reinforced with 4X8 lumber which appeared to have been bent with heavy equipment but was actually the force of "air displacement" a resulting consequence of the explosion.
Thanks for not sending me to the tar and feather pit, yet but I think there is something to be learned here.
I have been searching some of the previous posts and all looking for things that Tom had contributed (Thanks Jim, for getting me started). There are some very experienced contributors here, this would be the place to discuss things like this. I think this is one of the things that can help us all see through each other's eyes and wear the same smelly shoe, you know the one size fits all. It would be like the house slipper that doesn't have to fit exact but something you are comfortable in.
By the way, since Tom isn't here to listen to me, my girls said to say thank you for being here to divert my attention. Since I have been visiting with you here, I've let up on teaching them the adjusting business. I have been taking them with me on claims during all their non-school time for 8 years, the last one graduates High School this year. |
 |
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 07:14:46
|
I am not familure with the fuel cells on the shuttle but I'll bet the blast would rival a small nuke, especially if the cells were just about empty. That in conjunction with the sonic boom would cause extensive damage over a large area. I have never heard a report of what altitude the explosion occured but I would think it would have been seven or eight miles instead of thirty five miles.
Cheryl, I liked your take on this event and I'll try to log it into my rusty memory banks. Get the extinguisher out I may get an over load:>)
You made a good point with go do what you're sent to do.
I wonder if the govt. will pick up the tab on this. The insurers may have the right to subrogation, this is just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Cheryl Joyce
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 08:27:17
|
Newt, Now you are seeing the big picture. We did not write the policy language and it takes deep minded people to figure these things out, but once we do the homework, everybody wants the cheat sheet for the test. I get butterflies because I see so much from this that is all laid out in front of us. I continue to do my homework. There is only one more question I have to answer. Thanks.
I bet there is some sort of tort from the government or NASA program, I don't know that, but it is something I will look into. But there is nothing I see thus far that relieves the ACB Ins. Company from their contractual duty under an "in force policy". |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 10:28:02
|
Newt, the shuttle desintegrated at 200,000 feet above Texas. That's about 39 miles up. It didn't explode. It was violently torn apart by the slip stream and the fire and smoke that we saw was caused by the friction of the shuttle entering the atmosphere at 17,000 mph. By the time it got to Dallas, they say it was traveling about 12,000 mph. I think that's 17 times the speed of sound. Most of the highly flamable fuel had been burned on launch.
The fuel cells on the shuttle are hydrogen fuel cells. The same ones the President mentioned that he wants to put into cars in the next 20 years. They work by combining hydrogen and oxygen into, you guessed it, water. This chemical reaction creates a stream of electrons that we call electricity. While hydrogen is highly flamable (the hindenberg) there isn't a whole lot of oxygen at 39 miles up and fuel cells don't carry a whole lot of hydrogen in them. The air is so thin that even if there was an explosion, the effect on the ground would be blounted by the fact that the air up there is so thin, it wouldn't carry the "boom" like it would at sea level.
From what I've read, in the last few seconds of the flight, the shuttles auto pilot was working like crazy to keep the nose pointed in the right direction and ultimately lost the battle. The shuttle skidded to the left and that exposed it's broad and very non aerodynamic side to the air at 12,000 mph. Immagine an F3000 tornado hitting an aluminum barn. That is what happened. It was just ripped apart by the impact of the air. The sonic booms of each little piece and those pieces impacting the air of the increasingly thicker atmosphere as they fell are what caused the rumbling freight train sound that people have described.
All of that being said. I believe that the damage, if any, would be caused by the rumbling of the falling debris and the shaking of the ground as the pieces impacted the earth. But the area of damage would be limited to the vicinity where the debris actually made impact. So far the pieces being found have been 8' wide or smaller and all very thin and made of either light weight aluminum or titanium so they had a very low mass to size ratio. When they impacted there wasn't a lot of mass hitting the ground so the shock wave of the impact wouldn't travel very far. I just don't see how, short of actually hitting the building, much damage could have been done to structures on the ground. If there is some damage it would be very minor but as we all know, if there is damage, we owe for it. I just can't wait to see how you're gonna subrogate against NASA. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 10:51:26
|
Cheryl, although I am a proponent that a policy (HO3) could provide supportive language in the wording towards available coverage (as per my 2/15 post); I am however quite sceptical (probably downright convinced) of there being any damage being caused by the event that is the subject of this thread.
The types of 'imperfections' you describe, as noted in the 3 homes you viewed, while on this quest, are not unlike what could be found and are found in homes everywhere, with the passing of time; the causes of which are varied and many.
I did a bit of a search of newspapers in the area you had generally stated was your adjusting territory, and could find no reference to any homewoner claims frequency originating from a sonic boom.
There has to be a clear and definable line established between 'evidence' and 'advocacy'.
I refer you to a January 3/03 BBC News web article, regarding the study of sonic boom originating from the Concorde jet; the 'boom' from which would be at a much lower altitude than either you or Newt suggested. See,
www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2602345.stm
In addition, the following may create some other sources for you, in the evaluation of any cause, relating to some of the observations you noted. See,
www.serdp.org/funding/FY2004/CPSON-04-03.pdf
Another interesting article as listed,
www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/center/sonicbooms.html
The 'Edwards' article could be of value in your consideration of any damage from the event. A quote of particulat worthiness, "Because altitude determines the distance the shock wave travels before reaching the ground, it too influences the intensity of the sonic boom. As the shock wave moves away from the airplane, it spreads out in the shape of a cone. Because energy contained in the shock wave is spread over a larger area, the strength of the shock is reduced. Higher altitude flights thus provide a greater distance for the shock to travel, and a reduced sonic boom on the ground".
A Google search indicates there were about "1,100 results" from a search of "sonic boom damage claims". I do point out, a review of the first 100 titles and summaries, that none contained any reference to any claims arising from the space shuttle incident.
In regards to the discussion between you and Newt, concerning subrogation, tort or litigation - aside from your first being satisfied that you have claims arising from a sonic boom, and then paid indemnity - I refer you to an excerpt from 'Kirk v. United States' relative to that issue. In part, "Where plaintiffs suffered injury caused by sonic booms in connection with supersonic transport, where the FAA had publically assured local residents that damages so caused would be reimbursed by the federal government, and where the conduct of the government was neither wrongful nor negligent, plaintiffs were entitled to recover 'ex contractu' under the Tucker Act rather than 'ex delicto' under the Federal Tort Claims Act ....".
If you get past the first few steps on your quest with these claims, this may be worthy to consider its current relevancy or applicability.
I just don't see the 'big picture', that you and Newt share.
I am now completely satisfied that the sonic boom from the event in question, could have very little likelyhood of causing structural damage at ground level.
However, there is a fairly common analytical technique that is often used 'post-claim', in the evaluation of claimed vibration damage; where there was no 'pre-claim' survey completed.
There has been a lot of tests, studies and 'papers' created over the years concerning vibration damages. The International Standards Organization published "Standard ISO 4866", in 1990, to provide guidelines for measurement and evaluation of vibration effects on buildings.
One of the common ways to measure soil vibration is peak particle velocity (PPV). Some of the key thresholds established with this testing method are;
PPV of 0.01 in/sec - perception by humans is possible
0.30 - is disturbing to humans. It has been noted that when humans detect vibrations in this range, they are likely to assume that these vibrations are damaging their structures
2.00 - minimum threshold for vibration damage to appear. At this level, "cosmetic damage", such as hairline cracks to drywall, can begin.
5.40 - the threshold for "minor damage", where cracks in mortar joints of brickwork can occur, and would likely be noticeable.
7.60 - the threshold for "major damage", such as foundation shifting, can begin.
Variables such as magnitude and frequency of vibration, soil type, and distance from source to structure; are contributing factors in this evaluation.
With this analytical technique, the 'damage' is not related to the PPV data, but conversely, the PPV data is considered to evaluate the applicability of the claimed damage to any relevant cause.
Hopefully, this will help 'level the playing field'; concerning the consideration of any claims being related to a sonic boom from the unfortunate event noted. |
|
|
|
TomToll
USA
87 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 12:25:22
|
Sonic Boom
Sonic boom is an impulsive noise similar to thunder. It is caused by an object moving faster than sound -- about 750 miles per hour at sea level. An aircraft traveling through the atmosphere continuously produces air-pressure waves similar to the water waves caused by a ship's bow. When the aircraft exceeds the speed of sound, these pressure waves combine and form shock waves which travel forward from the generation or "release" point.
As an aircraft flies at supersonic speeds it is continually generating shock waves, dropping sonic boom along its flight path, similar to someone dropping objects from a moving vehicle. From the perspective of the aircraft, the boom appears to be swept backwards as it travels away from the aircraft. If the plane makes a sharp turn or pulls up, the boom will hit the ground in front of the aircraft.
The sound heard on the ground as a "sonic boom" is the sudden onset and release of pressure after the buildup by the shock wave or "peak overpressure." The change in pressure caused by sonic boom is only a few pounds per square foot -- about the same pressure change we experience on an elevator as it descends two or three floors -- in a much shorter time period. It is the magnitude of this peak overpressure that describes a sonic boom.
There are two types of booms: N-waves and U-waves. The N-wave is generated from steady flight conditions, and its pressure wave is shaped like the letter "N." N-waves have a front shock to a positive peak overpressure which is followed by a linear decrease in the pressure until the rear shock returns to ambient pressure. The U-wave, or focused boom, is generated from maneuvering flights, and its pressure wave is shaped like the letter "U." U-waves have positive shocks at the front and rear of the boom in which the peak overpressures are increased compared to the N-wave.
For today's supersonic aircraft in normal operating conditions, the peak overpressure varies from less than one pound to about 10 pounds per square foot for a N-wave boom. Peak overpressures for U-waves are amplified two to five times the N-wave, but this amplified overpressure impacts only a very small area when compared to the area exposed to the rest of the sonic boom.
The strongest sonic boom ever recorded was 144 pounds per square foot and it did not cause injury to the researchers who were exposed to it. The boom was produced by a F-4 flying just above the speed of sound at an altitude of 100 feet.
In recent tests, the maximum boom measured during more realistic flight conditions was 21 pounds per square foot. There is a probability that some damage -- shattered glass, for example, will result from a sonic boom. Buildings in good repair should suffer no damage by pressures of less than 16 pounds per square foot. And, typically, community exposure to sonic boom is below two pounds per square foot. Ground motion resulting from sonic boom is rare and is well below structural damage thresholds accepted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and other agencies.
Characteristics
The energy range of sonic boom is concentrated in the 0.1 - 100 hertz frequency range that is considerably below that of subsonic aircraft, gunfire and most industrial noise. Duration of sonic boom is brief; less than a second -- 100 milliseconds (.100 seconds) for most fighter-sized aircraft and 500 milliseconds for the space shuttle or Concorde jetliner .
The intensity and width of a sonic boom path depends on the physical characteristics of the aircraft and how it is operated. In general, the greater an aircraft's altitude, the lower the overpressure on the ground. Greater altitude also increases the boom's lateral spread, exposing a wider area to the boom. Overpressures in the sonic boom impact area, however, will not be uniform. Boom intensity is greatest directly under the flight path, progressively weakening with greater horizontal distance away from the aircraft flight track.
Ground width of the boom exposure area is approximately one mile for each 1,000 feet of altitude; that is, an aircraft flying supersonic at 30,000 feet will create a lateral boom spread of about 30 miles. For steady supersonic flight, the boom is described as a carpet boom since it moves with the aircraft as it maintains supersonic speed and altitude.
Some maneuvers, diving, acceleration or turning, can cause focusing of the boom. Other maneuvers, such as deceleration and climbing, can reduce the strength of the shock. In some instances weather conditions can distort sonic booms.
Sonic Boom Refraction
Depending on the aircraft's altitude, sonic booms reach the ground two to 60 seconds after flyover. However, not all booms are heard at ground level. The speed of sound at any altitude is a function of air temperature. A decrease or increase in temperature results in a corresponding decrease or increase in sound speed.
Under standard atmospheric conditions, air temperature decreases with increased altitude. For example, when sea-level temperature is 58 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at 30,000 feet drops to minus 49 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature gradient helps bend the sound waves upward. Therefore, for a boom to reach the ground, the aircraft speed relative to the ground must be greater than the speed of sound at the ground. For example, the speed of sound at 30,000 feet is about 670 miles per hour, but an aircraft must travel at least 750 miles per hour (Mach 1.12, where Mach 1 equals the speed of sound) for a boom to be heard on the ground.
|
Tom Toll |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 12:44:41
|
| Tom, with the data and explanations you provided, can you relate it, in the form of an opinion; regarding the likelyhood of the subject event causing structural damage to dwellings many miles below the "occurrence"? |
Edited by - CCarr on 02/20/2003 12:46:17 |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 13:35:38
|
| Had read that article Tom, a good explaination, but it doesn't measure the sonic boom created by challenger. Does to speed it enters the atmosphere have an effect and the altitude. I bet the airforce and NASA have done the math as to how strong and over what area. Mean while has any heard of a claim being submitted? |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 13:47:26
|
I never witnessed any damage from sonic booms and I was present both inside and outside when they ocurred. The damage most likely came from the fuel cell explosion and as I said before I think it was at a lower altitude than reported if there was wide spread damage.
The space craft that exploded on take off however , caused no property damage that I know of and
Believe me the blast off is worse than any sonic boom I ever heard.
I believe what Cheryl said you do what you gotta do, just what they send you out to do. If the powers think it was sonic boom, so be it. |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 14:02:55
|
I live within thirty mile of Cape Canaveral and often have a noise like boo-boom about five minutes prior to touchdown when the shuttles return for landing. No property damages have ever been noted to be caused by sonic booms that I am aware of in my area.
William S Cook |
|
|
|
Cheryl Joyce
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2003 : 20:41:15
|
All of your input is very interesting and informative for the research of this thread.
I have another inspection in one of the cities on a small 8 unit apartment complex set for Monday. It will be interesting to see what I find. If nothing else it makes my day go by with potential of enhancing my adjusting and investigative skills.
Thanks for the info, I want to digest all of the meanings. |
|
|
|
TomToll
USA
87 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 23:16:47
|
Turn your boom box up all the way so it will kick out about 200 dcbs. Stand in front of it and then start walking away. The further your retreat, the lesser the noise. These are wave forms and are identical to the sonic waves. Any wave disturbance will decrease over distance. The decrease at altitude will vary, depending on air density, (ie hot, cold, damp). The less dense air will allow the waves to flow further before dissipating. The more dense air will contribute to a faster rate of dissaption.
The shuttle was 30+ miles above us and with the pitch angle at time of initial disintegration it and its pieces created a u-wave which is a broader wave than the n-wave. With the altitude and density levels of that early morning, the boom booms were heard, but as far as earth shock, would have been no greater than a bolt of lighting striking nearby.
The first time I experienced a sonic boom was in Nevada and it was a low level fly by at just over 780knots. This was an F-86 Sabre Jet in a moderate dive, leveling at 1,000' ASL. It shook the ground rather violently, similar to one stick of dynamite blowing 300 feet away. Had that flight been made at 70,000' ASL, the shock quotient would be dramaticly reduced, due to altitude and air density/resistance. It is like a bullet fired from a weapon, air resistence/friction causes it to slow and finally come to rest.
I don't think it possible that Columbia caused any shock wave damage, no more that what a bolt of lightning would cause. I have no doubt that some will try to take advantage of this tragedy to remodel their homes. 9/11 brought out a lot of wonderful humans, but with that came the bad. Fraud was, and is rampant in NY from 9/11, whether we wish to believe it or not. The need for greed is rampant in our country. The only way to stop is to teach our children that honesty and a good wholesome attitude is the sparkle of life, not the (Jones Syndrome).
If you know your business, care about what you do, pay for the claim ,if the claim is a valid and legitmate claim. You and I work for vendors and they work for Companies. If we do not conduct ourselves as knowledgable ladies and gentlemen that care for the people we represent, then we all need to go to law school and become ambulance chasers.
My two cents worth.
|
Tom Toll |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Sonic Boom -- Explosion??
Forum Locked
