This document discusses construction accident subrogation and identifying parties responsible. It notes that construction sites involve multiple subcontractors and have unique safety hazards. Proper investigation is important to determine causes and involved parties. Case studies are presented where the author was able to identify subrogation potential through investigation, though often information is limited. Timely on-site investigation is important to secure evidence before it is lost or altered.

1. Who Else Owns this Construction Loss?
By: Steve Hunt, CPCU, ARM
President and Senior Safety Consultant
The Warren Group, Inc.

2. Case Study

3. Subrogation
Subrogation is often overlooked or not pursued
because the focus is on what the employer or
worker may have done wrong.

4. Who Else Owns this
Construction Loss?
Purpose:
Provide ideas and tools to assist you in
qualifying construction losses for
subrogation potential.

5. Learning Objectives:
• How to identify viable subrogation
opportunities
• Techniques for working subrogation cases for
a successful outcome

6. Why are Construction Losses Unique?
• High Severity losses
• Multiple parties
• Fast moving environment compared to
general industry

7. High Severity losses?
• Approximately 1,200 deaths and 480,000 non
fatal injuries annually.
• Construction has 6% of the workers but 20% of
the deaths.
• Construction deaths and serious injury rates are
considerably higher than that of other large
groups: Retail, Manufacturing, Agriculture,
Transportation, Wholesale, Utilities, etc.
Source: US Department of Labor

8. 36a. Distribution of leading causes of deaths from injuries,
construction, 2005
Falls (32.0%)
Other (6.2%)
Exposure (13.5%)
Contact w/ objects
(20.0%)
Transportation (28.4%)
Source: Center for Construction Research & Training

9. 36c. Leading causes of work-related deaths, construction, 1992-2005
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Number of deaths
Fall to lower level Contact with electric current
Highway accident Struck by object
Source: The Center for Construction Research & Training

10. 37a. Distribution of causes of deaths from falls in construction,
1992-2005 average
From roof (33%)
Other (25%)
From girder, struct. steel (8%)
From ladder (16%)
From scaffold, staging (18%)
Source: The Center for Construction Research & Training

11. 37b. Rate of deaths from falls, selected construction occupations,
2003-2005 average
6.1
5.0
4.7
4.6
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.1
3.8
1.0
3.8
7.5
23.8
38.7
Ironworker
Roofer
Laborer
Welder
Painter
Brickmason
Carpenter
Drywall
Foreman
Electrician
Heat A/C mech
Construction manager
Plumber
All construction
Number of deaths per 100,000 full-time workers
Source: The Center for Construction Research & Training

12. Multiple Parties
• General Contractor
• Subcontractors – roofing, masonry, steel
erectors, carpentry, HVAC, plumbing, etc.
• Rental equipment companies – back hoes,
lifts, etc.
• Rent and perform companies – Scaffolding
erectors, cranes with operators.
• Construction Management Companies Owner

13. Construction vs. General Industry
• OSHA 1926 - Construction Safety Standards
• OSHA 1910 - General Industry Safety
Standards

14. Most Cited OSHA 1926
• Fall Protection - Guarding open sided
floors / platforms
• PPE – Head protection from impact, falling
flying objects
• Electrical – Ground fault protection & path to
ground missing or disconnected
• Scaffolding – Guardrails & frames
• Ladders – Various

15. OSHA – Multi-employer Worksites
• Exposing Employer
• Creating Employer
• Controlling Employer
• Correcting Employer

16. Safety Standards
• Hazards
• Equipment
• Procedures
• Training
• Supervision
Regulatory and industry best practice

17. Most Workplace Injuries:
• Are predictable
• Are preventable
• Some safety standard or duty was violated
• All have A CAUSE!
• Most have MULTIPLE CAUSES

18. Keys to Subrogation
• Determine involvement of all parties
• Determine cause or causes
• Determine responsible parties

19. Determine Causes and Involvement:
• Someone else created a hazard and it led to
our person being injured.
• Someone else failed to perform and it led to
our person being injured.
• Someone else’s equipment failed and it led
to our person being injured.

20. Barriers to Cause
Determination and Subrogation
• Late reporting
• Misreporting – initial reports minor incident
• Business relationship
• Other parties involved may not cooperate

21. Barriers to Cause
Determination and Subrogation
Construction is fast moving
• Physical evidence can get covered up quickly.
• Workers / Witnesses move from job to job, some
disappear.
• Machinery and equipment get repaired and put back
into service.
• Language communication issues

22. Barriers to Cause
Determination and Subrogation
Your case?
No scene,
No pictures,
No witnesses,
No statements,
No machinery or equipment

23. Proper Investigation can
Yield Improved Results
Accurate information is needed quickly
1. Detailed descriptions of events
2. Alleged cause
3. Equipment involved
4. Parties involved
5. Witnesses

24. What information do we need?
• Names – Companies involved, witnesses,
supervisors, etc.
• Photographs
• Secure the scene, if possible
• Subcontractor Contracts
• Copy of Safety Programs for this job
• Safety meeting minutes

25. What information do we need?
• Accident investigation reports
• OSHA Inspection report
• Construction plans
• Safety inspection reports
• Witness statements
• Key person interviews

26. Case Study
• Plumber checking pipes falls through
uncovered floor opening.

29. Case Study
• Arc Flash burn at Waste Water plant
construction site
I was onsite the following day

33. Case Study
• County inspector falls when walk board gives
way over 14 foot hole.
No onsite completed – only 5 photographs provided

37. Case Study
• Mason drops concrete on electrician from
three stories up
No photographs due to limited initial investigation
I was hired 2 years after the incident

38. Case Study
• Roofer’s laborer falls through unguarded
floor opening.
Onsite one month after fall

41. Case Study
• Fall off of a Metal Roof
No onsite or onsite photographs but good information from
witness statements and depositions.

43. Conclusion
• Responsibility is not always clear cut.
• Rarely do we get everything we would like to
have, but sometimes it is enough to achieve a
positive outcome.
• The more thorough and timely the
investigation, the better the outcome.

44. Questions?
Presented at Selective Insurance Claims Adjusters
2010 Annual Conference, Hershey, PA

45. Source: E-mail safety contest joke series