Free Affidavit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

*1 _ Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS Document 19-48. Filed 08/30/2004 Page 1 of 4
I ‘ January 27, 2004
Mr. Miehael P. Mezzacappa ‘ V
. Kaufman Borgeest &_Ryan LLP
200 Summit Lake Drive _
Valhalla, New York 10595 ‘ V - t
Via Facsimile and Mail I
_Re: Glens Falls Insurance Company v. Command Force Security Systems,
- _ Inc.. ‘ , V · Y s
1 Civil Action No. 303 CV _1015
Your File No. 328.002
- CED Case No. 51049.1 ‘
Dear Mr. Mezzacappa:
At- your request, I reviewed the tile materials provided and analyzed the circumstances
relating to the above captioned tire loss. This report expresses my opinions in this matter
to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. This is a preliminary report based on the
infomation available to me concerning the matter at the present time. I understand that
Ml. ram in
order to reach the conclusions in his expert report, has been requested. I will amend my
opinions in the event that any of this additional infomation has a bearing on them. I °
Introduction ’ L I
This matter involves a house tire at 34 Wildwood Drive, Wilton, Connecticut on July 23, V
2001. This is a negligence action brought by Glens Falls Insurance Company afs/o
Harold and Lauren Heinz, against»Comrnand Force Security Systems. I .
Background
The subject residence was originally a ranch. style house with additions on various levels

at various times. The room of fire origin was reportedly two steps down from the kitchen

he master bedroom was located above the lower level
bedroom in which the tire originated.
. ` · § PLAINTlFF‘S _
. i 1 4 E’é‘l'?lllllt—··‘.c nig
p · Q on apmqfjgtv _

. Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS Document 19-48 Filed 08/30/2004 Page 2 of 4
Command Force Security Systems installed the monitored fire alarm system in February
of 2000. The system was designed with the homeowner in response to an insurance
inspection report, which recommended that the existing local fire alarms be up graded to a
centrally monitored alarm system. The fire alarm portion of the monitored system was n
comprised of three smoke detectors. One smoke detector was located in the hallway
between the kitchen and the bedroom area of the house. V
None of the occupants of thehouse were at home at the time of the fire. The monitoring an _
company received a fire alarm signal at ll:06 a.m. and notified the Wilton Fire V `
Department at ll:08 a.m., after first calling the residence. The fire department
responded, with the first apparatus arriving on the scene at ll:l5 a.m. The fire was
F extinguished anddeclared under control at l2:45 p.m. Direct fire damage was confined
to two rooms, the room of fire origin and the master b I
Private and public sector investigators determined that the cause of the fire was an
electric lamp igniting clothes or bedding in the lower level bedroom. The fire spread
_ from the room of origin to another bedroom above it via the exterior of the building. The _
house has been rebuilt and extensively added to after the fire. The present housedappears
. to be a three-story structure covering the footprint ofthe original. I
_ Investigation . ` ·p
My investigation in this matter consisted of the review and analysis of the following
I documents: -
l. The Complaint dated May 5, 2003. {
2. Fire Investigation Report, Fire Marshal’s Office, Wilton, Connecticut,
- I Incident Ol-801, dated October 6, 2001 by D. Kohn.
I 3. Report of TJ. Klem and Associates by Joseph Folger and Thomas J. Klem
4. Expert disclosure dated November l7, 2003.

" Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS Document 19-48 Filed 08/30/2004 Page 3 ot 4 — _
. 3
5. Supplemental report of T. J. Klem and Associates by Thomas J. Klem.
6. Command Force subscriber activity report. I ·
. - . 7. Diagram of the building footprint dated July 31, 2001, by Schliefer
Associates, _,`‘ ‘
8. DataLath Inspection Services report dated October 29, 1999 by Edward F.
Duffy.
9. NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, 1999 Edition. ‘
- _ 10. Photographs: . . _ I V
a. 22 color copies of photographs of T. I- Klem and Associates with time I
stamp Ol-7-25. I ‘ -
b. 21 color copies of photographs of Schleifer Associates with time stamps
Ol-7-3l and Ol-8-8, marked as defendant’s exhibits U through GG. V ‘ n
c. 34 color copies of photographs marked collectively as defendant’s exhibit
HH. Some with time stamp 2001-7-25..
I d. 8 color copies of photographs of new construction after the tire, marked as
_ defendant’s exhibit OO.
Additionally, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Matthew Matza of Command
n Discussion/Analysis
n The initial T. J. Klem and Associates report states that the building contained a tire alarm ` ‘ in
system with smoke detectors, which were positioned about the home according to the h
national standards at the time of their installation. The fire alann system in the home was
operable at the time ofthe incident and transmitted a tire alarm signal. The tire alarm l 1
system was monitored off premises and was reported the tire to the Wilton tire T
department less than two minutes after the signal was received. The T. J. Klem report
acknowledges that the fire was still in the controllable phase when the alarm was sent to

“ Case 3:03-cv—01015-DJS Document 19-48 Filed 08/30/2004 Page 4 of 4
V 4
A the ire department. The report reiterates the statements of NFPA 72, that smoke
. detectors are intended for the life safety of the building occupants. q
The supplemental T. J. Klern and Associates report contradicts the initial report and ,
concludes that the fire alarm system was inadequate with respect to:
l. Early detection of the fire. A
- 2. Notification to the monitoring company. . .
3. Timely notification of the fire department. A [ _
4. The systern’s ability to achieve life safety of the occupants and to limit fire
damage to the home. ‘ ‘
Points l, 2 and 3 above are in contradiction of the previous report and the facts. The
analysis leading to point 4 was accomplished with the benefit of hindsight, in which the
I I design of the fire detection/alarm system was optimized for the circumstances of this
particular fire. t n -
` The National Fire Alarm Code sections cited do not explicitly specify the criteria, which _
Mr. Klem says the existing fire alarm system violated. NFPA 72 is silent on the systems
ability to limit fire damage to a residence. Mr. Klern describes the system as inadequate,
but stops short of describing it as non-compliant. A
_ Additionally, the requirements of NFPA 72 are satisfied by single station smoke
detectors. A single station smoke detector in the basement bedroomiwould have met Mr. `
Klem’s suggested increased level of protection to the occupants, but would have made no V
l difference to the course of this fire.