• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Negligence?

LGreene

Registered User
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,154
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
I saw a discussion on LinkedIn the other day, where someone commented that if a building owner cut a big hole in his fire door, the insurance company wouldn't pay the claim if there was a fire. I confirmed with a lawyer that improperly modifying a fire door or failing to maintain a fire door would be considered negligence, and I even found a couple of old court cases about damage caused by missing or malfunctioning fire doors.

In the interest of helping building owners understand the possible liability, I'd love to find some recent precedent to support the need for proper maintenance. In the states that have adopted the 2009 IFC or 2009 NFPA 101, annual fire door inspections are required. I don't expect to find too many cases related specifically to fire doors because they don't seem to get the attention that Doorman and I think they deserve, but do any of you know of a recent case where failing to maintain the sprinkler system, failure to have the elevator inspected, etc., affected the insurance claim or outcome of a lawsuit? I know of a couple of recent fires where a defective fire door played a role in the spread of the fire, but it's hard to get any information due to pending lawsuits.

If you have any personal experience or advice (not necessarily a court case), I'd love to hear it.
 
I found this on a law firm's website (http://www.geklaw.com/news_premises.html):

GEK Attorneys Reach Substantial Settlement in Premises Liability Case

Home. One word that conjures up a myriad of images. The size doesn’t matter. The “type” doesn’t matter—single-family, apartment, condominium. It’s all about the people in it and the feeling of safety within its walls.

That feeling of safety can be shattered in an instant, however, as it was for a client of Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, LLP (GEK). He relied on the owner of his apartment building to place the health and well-being of his tenants at the forefront of his responsibilities. The owner was not of the same mindset. In fact, by failing to meet fire code standards—repeatedly—he displayed a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of his tenants. That disregard caused the death of our client’s parents who perished when the building became engulfed in flames.

“This was a slumlord type of situation in which the property owner allowed dangerous conditions to exist in the building, despite repeated warnings from the Fire Department, which ultimately led to disaster,” says Howard Krepack, a Personal Injury partner at GEK. “He not only put the lives of his tenants at risk, but also, as it turned out, the lives of the firefighters who responded to the call.”

The devastation from the inferno, which started as a kitchen fire in one of the first-floor units then spread throughout the structure, could have been minimized if the building owner had not been in violation of several fire code sections. In fact, the building had been placed on fire watch (surveillance of a premises to identify and control fire hazards) several times for a multitude of violations, including the following:

Multiple fire doors that were damaged and didn’t close completely

Broken self-closing mechanisms on fire doors

Multiple fire doors were propped open

Non-certified fire alarm and fire protection system

Non-certified fire extinguishers

Exit signs that were broken or missing bulbs

A local fire inspector not only pointed out the necessary repairs to the owner and property manager several times, but also explained, on repeated visits, the importance and significance of fire doors. However, at no time prior to the fire had the fire code violations been abated. In fact, ever after the fire, the landlord continued to be non-compliant with many of the violations that pre-dated the fire.

Had the fire doors on the first and third floor been working, they would have compartmentalized and contained the fire and smoke within a portion of the first-floor corridor. Instead, however, the fire spread and turned the third floor into a blazing inferno.

“Through expert testimony and a thorough investigation by the Fire Department, we proved that the spread of the fire from its origin on the first floor to the third floor was due to the negligence of the landlord and its agents, and that the negligence had catastrophic consequences,” says Eugenia Steele, a GEK partner. “The landlord breached its duty of care.”

That breach also caused many people to be injured and hundreds to be displaced.

“Even though we reached a substantial, confidential settlement for our client, nothing can bring back his parents. An irreplaceable hole has been left not only in his family but also in the hearts of his parents’ dear friends,” says Krepack.

More than 3,500 people in the United States die each year because of fires and another 20,000 are injured, according to the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). Many of those deaths and injuries occur in buildings such as the one in which our client lived. In an effort to prevent such tragedies, the USFA created a Factsheet on High-Rise Safety.

What is evident from GEK’s case and this fact sheet is the importance of fully functional fire doors. The following are some fire door tips:

They must be certified by recognized testing laboratories, and must have the lab’s certification label.

They must not be held open unless equipped with a device that releases the doors upon activation of the fire alarm.

Fire doors are needed where a door has an exit sign on or around it, leads to exit stairwells and horizontal exits or leads to a hazardous area, such as flammable storage.

“It is clear from the outcome of our case that the tort system is vital to improving safety. Sometimes change only comes about when the need for it is felt in the wallet. Slumlords will continue to be slumlords until their actions affect their bottom line,” says Krepack.

GEK has had great success representing clients harmed by unsafe premises. If you would like to talk to an attorney about your case, please contact us at 213-739-7000 or click here to learn more about your legal options.
 
cda said:
Structural collapse...SCARY!!! I have seen that NFPA report - it's great! NFPA also gave me a report on fire door incidents. I tried to upload it here but it's too big. I just put it on my FDAI page - it's mid-way down and it's called NFPA Report on Fire Door Incidents: http://idighardware.com/fdai/
 
You typicallty get insurance to cover your negligence--

Yes you would be liable to tenants etc for the additional damage done-

But your insurance will still cover you unless they can prove intent to burn the builing down.

Leaving a pot of oil unattended on the stove or running a stopsign is negligent, but the insurance still pays unless they can prove you did it with intent to start the fire or facilitate its spread.
 
The problem with the building in las Vegas was that the contractor installed some of the reinforcing steel wrong and the inspectors did not find the problem untill the building was partially complete. They then decided to shorten the building and finish it off after the economic collapse.
 
In 2005, a resturant burned. The fire suppresion system did not meet UL 300 Fire Test Standard. Suppression system companies had refuesed to service the system because it did not meet code. The FD was aware the system was non-compliant, and several notices. I think it was last year that the court case ended. The ruling was the insurance company did not have to pay the claim. This happened in Boston, an area of which our Door Lady is familiar.
 
fireguy said:
In 2005, a resturant burned. The fire suppresion system did not meet UL 300 Fire Test Standard. Suppression system companies had refuesed to service the system because it did not meet code. The FD was aware the system was non-compliant, and several notices. I think it was last year that the court case ended. The ruling was the insurance company did not have to pay the claim. This happened in Boston, an area of which our Door Lady is familiar.
That's ringing a bell - I will check it out!
 
Not related to the fire doors, but I have seen insurance companies pay when people renovate their houses w/o permits and burn their house down because of it....so there is no rhyme or reason (to me) as to what they pay out on......on the other hand.....one of my FM's has thrown a woman in jail for tampering with her SD in her apartment...I imagine it would be the same for someone who altered a fire door.....
 
fireguy said:
In 2005, a resturant burned. The fire suppresion system did not meet UL 300 Fire Test Standard. Suppression system companies had refuesed to service the system because it did not meet code. The FD was aware the system was non-compliant, and several notices. I think it was last year that the court case ended. The ruling was the insurance company did not have to pay the claim. This happened in Boston, an area of which our Door Lady is familiar.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2011/07/20/206553.htm
 
Negligence is often alleged and rarely goes to trial.

This because insurance companies settle on the basis of exposure.

And attorneys collect a percentage.
 
"so-called “dry” fire-suppression system, manufactured by Kidde, had been installed in the restaurant since before 1974. In 2000, the manufacturer recommended that all dry systems be upgraded to “wet” ones. Two years later, it ceased supporting, inspecting and repairing dry systems"

To clarify, Kidde did not inspect or repair systems. That is left to the independant contractor.
 
brudgers said:
Negligence is often alleged and rarely goes to trial.This because insurance companies settle on the basis of exposure.
and the settlement usually contains a non-disclosure clause, which can be PR nightmare for a company's reputation.
 
fireguy said:
In 2005, a resturant burned. The fire suppresion system did not meet UL 300 Fire Test Standard. Suppression system companies had refuesed to service the system because it did not meet code. The FD was aware the system was non-compliant, and several notices. I think it was last year that the court case ended. The ruling was the insurance company did not have to pay the claim. This happened in Boston, an area of which our Door Lady is familiar.
This case is the exception that proves the rule--Alot more than simple negligence --there were multiple notices that it was deficient and they did nothing about it--and there was a specific exclusion in the policy. IF it had been close it never have gone to trial.
 
Not fire doors, but you should Google the "Lofgren" family. They lost their lives due to carbon monoxide poisonging from an improperly installed boiler vent. The installer and inspector were indicted for criminally negligent homicide, but the charges were later dropped due to an issue with the statute of limitations. Civil litigation is pending.
 
Ivan,



Out of curiosity, do you know if the owners were investigated? This seems pretty textbook regarding the alleged “arson” and potentials for tampering with the fire sprinkler system.
 
Top