GM Recalls for Loss of Power Steering

General Motors (GM) has announced that it is recalling 1.2 million pick up trucks and SUVs due to a temporary loss of power steering.  The recall applies to 2015 Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac vehicles.  When the power steering disappears, the vehicle can become difficult to control increasing the risk of a crash.  GM has received 30 reports of crashes and two injuries.  GM will update the power steering module software free of charge for owners of the recalled vehicles.  For additional information, owners can contact GM by calling 1-866-522-9559.

 

Advertisements

Fire Hazard Prompts Ford to Recall 2 Million F-150s

The National Highway Safety Administration, NHTSA, has announced that Ford has recalled approximately 2 million F-150 pick up trucks.  The recall applies to 2015 -2018 F-150 regular and super crew cab pick up trucks.  The seatbelt pretensioner can generate sparks when activated during a sudden stop.  The sparks can ignite flammable material located inside the “B” pillar post including carpeting and insulation.  Ford has also identified the manufacturers of the seatbelts.  Joyson supplied the seatbelts for the 2015 to 2017 models while ZF supplied the belts for the 2018 year models.  Approximately 1.62 million vehicles were sold in the United States, 340,000 vehicles were sold in Canada and 37,000 were sold in Mexico.  The recall is expected to begin on September 24, 2018 with Ford notifying owners.  The Ford recall identification number for this recall is 18S27.  NHTSA’s campaign number is 18V568000.  For additional information, consumers can contact Ford by calling 1-866-436-7332 or visiting Ford’s website at www.ford.com.

 

 

 

Gas Logs and Soot Damage

This is a subject that I have blogged about in the past.  Gas log sets are very popular with homeowners and tend to create or add to a warm atmosphere when used.  However, soot damage is continuing to occur because manufacturers continue to build log sets that burn natural gas or propane incompletely.  That is, unburned carbon is escaping in the combustion gases and settling on walls, ceilings, furniture, clothing and anything else that happens to present a cool surface.  The science of combustion of gaseous fuels is well known and by no means new technology.  It has long been recognized that a blue flame is indicative of the closest to complete combustion that can be achieved.  The secret is mixing enough air with the fuel to obtain the correct mixture.  When the correct mixture is obtained, a blue flame results.  In contrast, flames with yellow tips or long yellow flames are indicators of incomplete combustion.  These are the flames that produce unburned carbon that ultimately settles on various surfaces as soot.  There is nothing that a homeowner can do to change the burning characteristics of a log set as the appearance is an inherent design.  If the log set is installed in a ventless fireplace, 100% of the products of combustion will enter the living space.  As a result, all of the soot produced will also enter whatever space the set faces.  If the set is installed in a fireplace with a chimney, then it is possible to control the ventilation of the gases by opening the chimney damper and allowing the gases to escape.  Instead of entering the home, soot usually travels up the chimney and settles on the walls and damper instead of the interior.

If you are unlucky enough to have soot damage, I recommend doing the following: first, take plenty of pictures of the places where soot has been deposited.  It is possible that you might be called upon to prove that soot damaged specific belongings.  Second, notify your insurance carrier.  Homeowners policies usually give policyholders a toll-free telephone number to call in the event that a claim has to be filed.  If you can’t find the number, call your insurance agent.  Your agent also has access to the insurance carrier and can report the claim or tell you what to do.  Third, start making a list of the damaged items.  The adjuster that will be assigned to your case will need to have an itemized list of damages so that they can begin to prepare estimates for those things that can be repaired or will have to be replaced.  Fourth, be prepared to have the gas logs set become the center of controversy.  Your carrier will most likely want to have the set examined by an engineer in order to establish a product defect.  The manufacturer also has the right to examine the set.  In doing so, both sides will have questions and will want access to your home and specifically, the area where the set was located.  Both sides will need documentation in the form of the owner’s manual, purchase invoice, and the metal identification plate that comes with the log set and is NOT supposed to be removed.  Fifth, the log set will become evidence and must be preserved as such.  The engineer hired by your carrier will want to take possession of the log set and place it in storage in anticipation of further examination or for use in court, if the need arises.  Sixth, cases can take months if not years to settle.  So, don’t expect to get the log set back anytime soon after it is taken.  Seventh, if you replace the set with another gas log set, remember that the possibility of soot damage returns again.  The only way to minimize the possibility of soot damage is to limit usage times to short periods or stop using the set altogether.

 

Contents of Aerosol Cans can be Flammable!

During a recent vehicle fire investigation, it was discovered that the owner had been carrying at least eight aerosol cans of different products during the hottest month of the year so far.  The fire resulted in the destruction of a Toyota Highlander that was only months old.  This is a perfect example that illustrates the fact that people will forget that the contents are flammable and that the potential for explosion and fire is very real.  In this particular case, some of the contents of these cans were identified as Raid Multi 7 Insect Spray, Bayer Advanced Home Insect Spray and Aqua Net Hair Spray.  The cans that were recovered are shown in the photograph below.  It was also determined that at least one of the cans exploded prior to the fire.  It is imperative to remember that when products in aerosol cans are purchased, they should be stored in a cool and dry place, not left in a hot vehicle.  Not all aerosol cans contain flammable ingredients but, if you are not going to read the label, then treat them as flammable and store them accordingly.

 

 

 

 

State Farm Accused of Influence Pedaling

On May 25, the Huntington News reported that State Farm Insurance Company had attempted to influence the Illinois Supreme Court.  State Farm spent $4 million to get a judge elected so it could evade paying $1.05 billion to 4.7 million policyholders.  State Farm had authorized the repair of vehicles using non-factory authorized and non-original equipment manufacturer parts which resulted in a class action lawsuit.  However, it an attempt to evade paying the judgment, State Farm formed an elaborate network of contributors and funneled the $4 million to a judge’s campaign which was in violation of RICO statutes.  State Farm’s trial is scheduled for September 18th, later this year.  The full text of the Huntington News article can be found at http://www.huntingtonnews.net/157148.  The article also points out that State Farm failed to compensate policyholders in 48 states (except Arkansas and Tennessee) for “breach of contract” in using substandard parts.  This means that policyholders all over the country are affected, not just residents of Illinois.  Policyholders are encouraged to visit http://www.halevstatefarmclassaction.com/home/documents and review the documents.  Because of this situation, policyholders are supposed to receive a notice by postcard of the trial.  This is the policyholder’s notice of the possibility to recover damages if their vehicle was repaired with non-approved parts.  A copy of the postcard is part of the documentation contained in the Hale v State Farm website.

It’s Not Always the Contractor’s Fault.

Although the time has come when warmer weather is upon us, the effects of this past winter are still being felt.  Recently, we were involved in an investigation that focused on the cause of damage to a water cooling coil located inside of a cooling tower (see photo below).  This might seem strange to some but, it is possible to require the cooling of a building during the winter.  In the investigation we were performing, the system was comprised of a water cooled water chiller.  This might not mean anything to most people but to those familiar with chiller operation, water was the fluid used to both cool the air and remove the heat absorbed by the refrigerant.  On the condenser side, water was circulated through a shell and tube heat exchanger and then pumped to another coil type heat exchanger located inside the cooling tower.  The problem arose when the local air temperature began to drop below freezing.  As the water temperature dropped below 40 F, water flow between the condenser and water coil was stopped (as part of the automatic control sequence).  As the air temperature continued to drop, the water temperature also dropped until the water froze inside the coil and caused it to burst in several places.  Since this was new construction, it was the engineer’s position that the mechanical contractor had erred and was negligent in their responsibility to protect the equipment.  However, it was later determined that the building had been turned over to the building owner under the substantial completion part of the contract.  As a result, the building owner was responsible for the protection of the building as well as the building’s mechanical systems.  Regardless of the positions taken by the various parties, the design of the HVAC system including the incorporation of freeze protection, was the responsibility of the mechanical engineer.  This responsibility is not an arbitrary assignment.  It has been long recognized by engineers and specifically, those engineers that are involved in HVAC design.  Although freeze protection had been designed into other parts of the system, no provision for freeze protection was made for the cooling coil located inside the cooling tower.  When all was said and done, the engineer failed to incorporate an adequate way to protect the coil and blamed the contractor in order to avoid the appearance of failure on their part.

DSC00236

Maytag Dryer Electrocution and Fire Hazard

Recently, we investigated the case of a minor fire that occurred in an electric dryer.  The dryer was purchased through a local home improvement store and installed by their crew.  When the dryer was test started, the vent line immediately began smoking and burning.  The dryer was later examined at the retail store where it had been purchased.  It was subsequently determined that one of the line cord connections at the terminal block, apart from the ground wire, was somehow connected to the dryer housing.  This connection, in effect, had made the appliance electrically “live”.  As a result, touching any metal part of the housing and something else such as a metal water pipe could have caused significant injury to the user.  However, since this was a new appliance and had never been used, the installers would not have been aware of the condition.  Instead, when the dryer was started, the housing was not only electrified but, current traveled through the aluminum exhaust duct to ground.  The exhaust duct was burned because it could not withstand the amount of current flow.  The dryer in question is manufactured by Whirlpool under the Maytag brand and is a model number MEDC215EW.  There are currently no recalls for this model.  At present, it is unknown if this is an isolated incident or if other incidents have occurred.

%d bloggers like this: