[null, null, {"document_url": "https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=660e61c2-d0dc-4892-ae62-4038e6be6e03", "unformatted_src": "https://d2dzik4ii1e1u6.cloudfront.net/images/lexology/firm/new/0f8fcc67-96f5-4c64-a099-f1aa30daf7da/W350/20160505110151.png", "src": "https://d2dzik4ii1e1u6.cloudfront.net/images/lexology/firm/new/0f8fcc67-96f5-4c64-a099-f1aa30daf7da/W350/20160505110151.png", "alt_text": "Keis George LLP logo"}, null, null, null, null]



Construction Subrogation Case | Six-Figure Jury Verdict

Keis George LLP USA July 29 2016

An insured had a grain system installed at their ranch. A company that supposedly had considerable experience in constructing such systems developed this grain storage and elevator system for the insured. Design engineering, construction, and installation of this new system was supposed to include the professional services and quality guarantee one would expect from an engineering firm, in addition to what regulatory bodies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), require from a structure.

On an early spring day, the grain elevator portion of the system collapsed and caused damage to other parts of the system. The engineer tried to blame high winds on the cause of the grain elevator collapse but maximum winds of 50 mph were recorded and the grain system was constructed to withstand 70 mph winds. All of this happened while the installing company was dispatched to the insured’s ranch to repair a supposed cable that was broken and previously reported to the company.

 


Compare jurisdictions:Pensions & Benefits Jeremy Mitchell