RECOVERY AND CLAIMS SUMMARIES CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE FIRE BY JEFFREY C. CALABRESE, COZEN O'CONNOR, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS This matter arose from a June 12, 2004, neon sign fire in Indianapolis, Indiana. We argued that it was caused by an electric ground fault within the second letter “A” of the word “RESTAURANT.” The fire caused $469,552.34 in property damage. Our client insured the building housing the restaurant’s tenancy. The defendant’s employees removed, refurbished and reinstalled the sign days before the fire. Our consultants eliminated all potential sources of ignition within the area of origin except the sign’s electrical components, but the fire’s cause remained undetermined. The physical evidence precluded more specific opinions. Nevertheless, we used circumstantial evidence, in conjunction with basic electrical and fire science concepts, to prove the fire’s cause. The neon sign was composed of a series of electric circuits that connected neon‐filled glass tubes to a high‐voltage (15,000 volts), low‐current power source. Neon signs use high‐voltage electricity to start and maintain the flow of current through the neon gas. Highvoltage wire called “GTO cable” was threaded through flexible metal conduit called “flex,” and the end of the GTO cable was connected to the neon tube’s electrode via a metal, tube‐shaped receptacle with a hollow glass insert called a “PK.” A flex‐covered GTO cable with an attached PK is called a “whip.” A metal, springshaped device at the end of the GTO cable connects the whip to the electrode. The sign’s high voltage created a great risk of fire when an electric ground was created. As electricity flowed through a ground path, localized heating at very high temperatures occurred within the metal PK housing. The wood surrounding the PK was likewise charred. The charred wood became an electrically conductive part of the ground path and it eventually ignited. UL standard 2161, which requires secondary ground fault protection in neon signs, was specifically developed to reduce the occurrences of fires in neon sign arising from these very circumstances. Deposition testimony demonstrated that the defendant’s employees were the last and only people to handle the sign’s components prior to the fire. In reinstalling the sign, the defendant elected to use its old transformers, which lacked secondary ground fault protection. They did so despite UL 2161 and the National Electric Code (NEC) requirements for such protection. Since Indiana adopted the 2002 NEC on September 13, 2002, the defendant was required, but failed, to replace the old transformers with compliant units. Transformers with secondary ground fault protection would have prevented this loss. A brief examination of the fire triangle explains why. Fire requires oxygen, a heat source and fuel to be present simultaneously. Air provided oxygen for this fire, since the sign was mounted on the building’s exterior façade. Our consultants determined that the only competent heat sources within the area of origin were either the suspect letter’s neon tube electrode or the high‐voltage GTO cable. Both were housed within a PK. The only potential fuel sources in this area were the GTO cable’s insulation, the PKs’ seals or the wood surrounding the PKs. We argued that for this fire to have occurred, electricity, which follows the path of least resistance, must have traveled through a ground path (a.k.a., a secondary ground fault) from the GTO cable via the PKs RECOVERY AND CLAIMS SUMMARIES This article appeared in the Winter 2008 Issue of the NASP Subrogator. © NASP housing to the wood façade. Without an electric ground, there would not have been a fire here because the heat source could not have contacted the fuel. Specifically, we asserted that the defendant’s employees must have improperly installed the sign’s electrical components within the area of origin. Only an improper installation could have created the requisite ground path. We argued that the defendant’s failure to install, or an improper installation of, a PK seal permitted moisture intrusion into the PK thereby creating a ground path via the PKs metal housing. Weather data confirmed the presence of mist and light rain on the date of loss, as well as winds blowing toward the south‐facing sign. Alternatively, we argued that the defendants cracked a PK’s hollow glass insert, thereby creating an electric ground via the PK housing, especially in the aforementioned wet conditions. Industry literature showed that such cracks regularly result from over tightening or other mechanical abuse of the PK during installation. Finally, we averred that a ground was created by a cut, tear or other abuse of GTO cable insulation when the defendant threaded it through the sharp edges of flex conduit. An electrical short resulted from direct contact or electrical acing between the high‐voltage GTO cable and the metal conduit. The conduit, which is in direct contact with the PK, created a path to ground via the PK to the surrounding wood. There was no physical evidence of any installation error since all such evidence was destroyed in the fire. Nevertheless, we argued that to complete the fire triangle one or more of the aforementioned installation errors must have occurred during the sign’s reinstallation. All such errors were attributable to the defendant’s employees, who were the last and only people to handle the sign. This problem was compounded by the defendant’s decision to use old transformers without secondary ground fault protection. Indeed, at deposition the defendant’s employees confirmed that they were not licensed electricians, and they were neither trained, nor understood, this code requirement for neon signs. The defendant patently failed to prevent this extreme fire hazard. In summary, circumstantial evidence, along with basic electrical theory and fire science, permitted us to effectively demonstrate that the fire must have resulted from the defendant’s improper installation of the suspect sign’s electrical components. Despite the absence of expert opinions and physical evidence with which to specify the cause of the fire, we successfully pooled and asserted circumstantial evidence to achieve a sizeable recovery for the client RECOVERY AND CLAIMS SUMMARIES This article appeared in the Winter 2008 Issue of the NASP Subrogator. © NASP