Technical Liability Assessment

Liability disputes are rarely about whether something failed. They are about which party carries it — and that turns on technical questions: did the product meet its specification, was it installed as the manufacturer required, was it maintained adequately, was the design fit for the duty it was put to.

How this differs from damage assessment

A damage assessment establishes what failed, why, and how far the damage extends. A liability assessment takes the next step: measuring what happened against what each party was obliged to do, and forming an opinion on where responsibility falls. The two are frequently commissioned together, but they answer different questions and a party often needs only one.

Questions we are asked to address

• Product conformityWhether the item as supplied met the specification, standard or code it was sold against, and whether any deviation is material to the failure.
• InstallationWhether installation followed the manufacturer's instructions and applicable codes, and whether departures from them contributed to the outcome.
• Maintenance and operationWhether the item was maintained at the required intervals and to the required standard, and whether it was operated within its stated limits.
• Design adequacyWhether the design was suitable for the conditions it was specified for, and whether those conditions were correctly communicated at the time.
• Contributory factorsWhere more than one party's act or omission contributed, the relative technical significance of each.
• Pre-existing conditionWhether the item was already degraded or defective before the event relied upon, which frequently determines the outcome.

How the assessment is conducted

• Physical examination of the item where it is available and has been preserved
• Review of the specification, purchase documentation and contractual obligations of each party
• Examination of the applicable standards and codes, and what they required at the relevant time rather than today
• Review of installation records, commissioning documentation and manufacturer instructions
• Review of maintenance history, inspection certificates and operating data
• Laboratory testing where the technical question cannot be settled without measurement
• Consideration of the alternative explanations advanced by each party, addressed on the evidence

The report

The report addresses each technical question put to us, states the evidence relied upon for every conclusion, and distinguishes clearly between what the evidence establishes and what remains uncertain. That distinction is the point: an opinion stated more firmly than the evidence supports will not survive being tested, and an assessment that overreaches damages the party relying on it. Where the evidence does not permit a conclusion, the report says so and states what would be needed to reach one.

Independence

ITMAD is an accredited inspection body and holds no interest in the outcome of any dispute. We do not carry out repairs, supply replacement equipment, or act on a contingent basis. Our opinion is formed on the evidence and reported as found, including where it does not assist the party instructing us — which is the only basis on which it is worth anything when it does.

Who commissions this

• Insurers assessing coverage or pursuing recourse against a third party
• Legal advisers requiring technical opinion on a contested point
• Asset owners in dispute with a supplier, contractor or installer
• Contractors defending an allegation of defective work
• Manufacturers responding to a product liability claim
• Parties in mediation or negotiation where the technical facts are contested