Manufacturer's Liability?

[qcrobert]

Hypothetical question concerning liability;

Consider a manufacturer has a "U" stamp and is insured thru a recognized company such a Hartford Steam & Boiler and fabricates pressure vessels. The vessel was constructed and tested to all the requirements of ASME Section VIII Div 1 and all documentation including U-1A form signed off by AI.

If said pressure vessel fails while in service and causes damage and loss of life, is the Manufacturer liable for any costs or does the insuring company assume all responsibility and costs?

 

[stanweld]

Assuming that the failure can be fully attributed to the manufacturer and not the Engineer or the Operator, the amount the manufacturer must pay will depend on the manufacturer's insurance policy - his deductible. If it is determined that the manufacturer was grossly negligent or fraudulent, the insurer may not be liable for any costs. There have been court cases so decided.

 

[metengr]

All kidding aside, the organization(s) that have the deepest pockets will be sued, period. Most likely, the manufacturer has insurance for this type of possible loss (errors and omissions). Hartford may only provide inspection activities and probably provides no actual insurance of the vessel itself.

Everything is fair game for review in court.

 

[qcrobert]

I agree everything is fair game in court even if the manufacturer followed all the correct procedures.

Was just wondering if it was similar to car insurance where the company would pay up after the deductible was paid.

Still as is likely, the premiums would go up or just drop you like some car insur companies have been known to do.

 

[TJOrlowski]

Regarding whether the AIA can be held liable for claims arising from vessels, the following is printed on every U-1 form, in the section(s) (shop or field or both) signed by the NB commissioned AI.

"By signing this certificate neither the Inspector nor his/her employer makes any warranty, expressed or implied, concerning the pressure vessel described in this Manufacturer's Data Report. Furthermore, neither the Inspector nor his/her employer shall be liable in any manner for any personal injury or property damage or a loss of any kind arising from or connected with this inspection"

The Inspector himself/herself, and a fabricator's Inspection agency specifically state that they are not responsible for anything. The onus is on the fabricator and his product liability insurance company, which may or may not extend to his raw material suppliers or subcontractors. If there's been a case where Hartford, OneBeacon or any of the other AIA's have paid damages on a claim brought out of a fabricator's negligence, this would be the first I've heard of it.

This of course assumes that the negligence was on the part of the fabricator. If the fabricator did not have all required information needed to design a safe piece of equipment, or if the unit were operated in a grossly unsafe manner, and the fabricator could prove it, the fault would probably lie with the engineer or operator.

-TJ Orlowski

 

[qcrobert]

Yes I have seen that in the Certificate of Shop/Field Inspection box that the AI signs.

In that the AI's employer is the insuring company that statement basically seems to say that the insuring company is not liable.

The hypothetical question states that the vessel failed but not through any negligence on the part of the fabricator.

I wonder what's the point of having an insuring company if they are not liable for anything.

 

[TJOrlowski]

AIA stands for authorized inspection agency, not authorized insurance company.

As for:

I wonder what's the point of having an insuring company if they are not liable for anything.

As with most things with the Code, it is not for us to reason why, it is but for us to do and die.

-TJ Orlowski

 

[qcrobert]

As with most things with the Code, it is not for us to reason why, it is but for us to do and die.

Sixty one years old, and I still question reason.

As my dear Grandfather would say, "Live & learn, die & forget."