The U.S. Court of Appears for the Second Circuit today denied a preliminary injunction motion (PDF) from television networks that would have prevented Aereo from transmitting recorded broadcast television programs to its subscribers. The court found that the networks, which have charged that Aereo’s service is illegal, “have not demonstrated that they are likely to prevail on the merits of this claim in their copyright infringement action.”

Late last year, a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Aereo’s service after most major networks, including NBC, ABC, and CBS (CNET’s parent company), hit the company with a lawsuit over alleged copyright infringement. The networks have argued that Aereo’s antenna, which receives over-the-air programming and then allows users to watch and record them on any Internet-connected device for $12 a month, is illegal. Aereo has expressed its innocence.

The networks are ostensibly seeking fees from Aereo for allowing its customers to record their programming. Aereo, however, has argued that the customers actually own the antenna, meaning Aereo is not responsible to pay the fee.

In response to the ruling in Aereo’s favor, the networks said they expect to prevail as the case proceeds. “As the courts continue to consider this case and others like it, we are confident that the rights of content owners will be recognized, and that we will prevail,” CBS said in a statement.

Despite its legal troubles, Aereo has been seeing some success. The upstart is rumored to be in talks with AT&T and Dish Network to increase its reach across the country. Aereo also has a roadmap for expansion. The company’s service, which was initially only available in New York City, expanded to 29 counties in New York State. In January, Aereo announced plans to bring its live streaming to 22 U.S. cities, including Miami, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City.

(Credit: Don Reisinger & John Falcone/CNET) http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57577280-93/aereo-wins-big-one-in-streaming-case-against-tv-networks/

Our new address is:
Zap Consulting
10844 Providence Road
Suite 225
Charlotte, NC 28277
Our telephone number and email addresses have remained the same.

About: Zap Consulting is the nation’s leading provider of electronics assessments. The company leverages a network of more than 600 technicians around the country to provide factual, timely reports that help insurers settle fair and accurately. If you would like more information about the company’s services or to submit an assignment, please visit them online at http://www.zap-consulting.com or contact them by phone at 888-406-0980.

Chinese factory owners are under intense pressure to lower production costs. Some of these companies claim to be counterfeit victims themselves. One Chinese toy manufacturer explained they were sold counterfeit paint that was labeled lead-free. Their toys were later sold and distributed throughout the U.S. Whenever a counterfeit item causes an accident, or illness, insurance companies often end up footing the bill. It is difficult for insurance carriers to go back against the liable parties. Whenever there is a counterfeit product involved, you must be able to identify it which is difficult. When you see a product with a brand name label, you assume it to be genuine. One method of determining a counterfeit is by comparing the clone with a confirmed original manufactured product. If it is found to be a counterfeit you must then prove the item caused the accident, whether due to inferior design or substandard materials. You can then go after the counterfeiter, or the distributor. You however must be able to prove that had the distributor was either negligent in knowing they were selling clones, or had they implemented proper testing, the clone would have been identified. This becomes increasingly difficult as foreign investors purchase U.S. companies, sometimes only for the name and distribution resources.
There is a huge exposure to American Insurers who write completed operations insurance to companies that import from China. In many suits, where the off-shore manufacturer or broker cannot be found, the seller has been brought into the suit and stood before a jury. If there are not major changes in how U.S. Insurers underwrite risks such as electrical and auto part suppliers, there could be a hardening of the market. This would result in large premium increases as well as a restriction of certain classes of business or certain types of coverage.
The counterfeit market has changed the guidelines for claims investigations as well. It is imperative that claims professionals be up to speed on what types of counterfeit items are being found. Claims departments can utilize experts such as Zap Consulting to assist in identify cloned products and help determine if there is potential subrogation or if it is necessary to notify the insured of a potential recall.
Several insurance carriers are now taking notice of companies that import foreign goods. They are seeing that companies without strict quality assurance programs pose much higher risks than in previous years. Some manufacturers are also adding bar codes and microchips to products to deter counterfeiting. Perhaps the increased cost of implementing these additional quality insurance programs and anti-counterfeiting measures will offset the once advantageous reduced foreign labor cost.

#2 Louisiana: 19.9 Strikes Per Square Mile
921,775 strikes per year with an average of 19.9 per square mile.

#3 Mississippi: 18.2 Strikes Per Square Mile
867,964 strikes per year with an average of 18.2 per square mile.

#4 Alabama: 15.8 Strikes Per Square Mile
819,634 strikes per year with an average of 15.8 per square mile.

#5 Oklahoma: 15.1 Strikes Per Square Mile
1,054,602 strikes per year with an average of 15.1 per square mile.

In the U.S. there are over 20 million “cloud-to-ground” strikes per year. According to the Insurance Information Institute, lightning losses accounted for 798 million dollars in losses in 2009. This of course does not consider the millions of dollars in losses that homeowners and business paid out of pocket for damages that were not reported to insurance companies.

We often think of lightning damage as what happens when lightning strikes a tree, structure, or wiring. However, a lightning strike current can extend into underground wiring and pipes as well as above ground power, cable and phone lines. Lightning can damage electronics and equipment a mile or more from the actual site of the strike due to the significant strength of a lightning current.

The best way to prevent damages to electronics from lightning is to unplug equipment that is not being regularly used. Not only does this decrease electrical consumption, it also decreases the risk of being damaged by a strike. Equipment that is used regularly utilizing a surge protector can significantly improve the chances of avoiding electrical damage. Also, having a licensed electrician inspect your home or building to make sure that all wiring has been installed correctly and is up to code may save you substantial money down the road.

Zap Consulting is the nation’s leading provider of electronics assessments. The company leverages a network of more than 600 technicians across the country to provide factual, timely reports that help insurers make fair and accurate claim settlements. If you would like more information about the company’s services or to submit an assignment, please visit them online at www.zap-consulting.com or contact them by phone at 888-406-0980.

Contact: Katie Stephens at 704-542-4220 or katie@zap-consulting.com

###

Charlotte – December 7, 2011 - Zap Consulting has compiled the 100 best and worst cities to handle property claims for 2011. Every year thousands of adjusters are deployed to cities to handle catastrophes as well as mini-catastrophes. The list was based upon an extended survey to property adjusters as well as numerous other factors including but not limited to insurance laws, types of construction, zoning, traffic, and weather. The cities are listed below in order from best to worst.

1. Austin, Texas
2. Columbus, Ohio
3. Honolulu, Hawaii
4. Fort Worth, Texas
5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
6. El Paso, Texas
7. Scottsdale, Arizona
8. Nashville, Tennessee
9. Seattle, Washington
10. Portland, Oregon
11. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
12. Tucson, Arizona
13. Albuquerque, New Mexico
14. Kansas City, Missouri
15. Fresno, California
16. Cleveland, Ohio
17. Charlotte, North Carolina
18. Sacramento, California
19. Mesa, Arizona
20. Virginia Beach, Virginia
21. Omaha, Nebraska
22. Denver, Colorado
23. Las Vegas, Nevada
24. Colorado Springs, Colorado
25. Tulsa, Oklahoma
26. Minneapolis, Minnesota
27. Arlington, Texas
28. Wichita, Kansas
29. St. Louis, Missouri
30. Raleigh, North Carolina
31. Santa Ana, California
32. Cincinnati, Ohio
33. Anaheim, California
34. Aurora, Colorado
35. Bakersfield, California
36. Riverside, California
37. Stockton, California
38. Corpus Christi, Texas
39. Indianapolis, Indiana
40. Durham, North Carolina
41. Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky
42. Buffalo, New York
43. St. Paul, Minnesota
44. Plano, Texas
45. Fort Wayne, Indiana
46. Glendale, Arizona
47. Lincoln, Nebraska
48. Greensboro, North Carolina
49. Chandler, Arizona
50. Birmingham, Alabama
51. Henderson, Nevada
52. Memphis, Tennessee
53. North Hempstead, New York
54. Madison, Wisconsin
55. Hialeah, Florida
56. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
57. Chesapeake, Virginia
58. Lubbock, Texas
59. Garland, Texas
60. Akron, Ohio
61. Rochester, New York
62. Norfolk, Virginia
63. Washington, District of Columbia
64. Chula Vista, California
65. Reno, Nevada
66. Laredo, Texas
67. Toledo, Ohio
68. Atlanta, Georgia
69. Long Beach, California
70. Modesto, California
71. Huntington, New York
72. Montgomery, Alabama
73. Boise, Idaho
74. San Bernardino, California
75. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
76. Phoenix, Arizona
77. San Diego, California
78. San Antonio, Texas
79. Dallas, Texas
80. San Jose, California
81. Boston, Massachusetts
82. Chicago, Illinois
83. Houston, Texas
84. Arlington, Virginia
85. St. Petersburg, Florida
86. New York, New York
87. New Orleans, Louisiana
88. Baltimore, Maryland
89. Orlando, Florida
90. Tampa, Florida
91. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
92. Newark, New Jersey
93. Jacksonville, Florida
94. Jersey City, New Jersey
95. San Francisco, California
96. Detroit, Michigan
97. Anchorage, Alaska
98. Oakland, California
99. Miami, Florida
100. Los Angeles, California

Zap Consulting is the nation’s leading provider of electronics assessments. The company leverages a network of more than 600 technicians around the country to provide factual, timely reports that help insurers settle fair and accurately. If you would like more information about the company’s services or to submit an assignment, please visit them online at www.zap-consulting.com or contact them by phone at 888-406-0980.

Contact: Katie Stephens at 888-406-0980 or katie@zap-consulting.com

###

These new technologies pose a great challenge to insurance companies. “Most current homeowner policies are based on the New York Standard Fire Policy Contract, first written in 1918, that provided the basis for modern-day property insurance. It therefore seems difficult to determine how coverage was intended to apply when dealing with a technology that was developed within the last few months,” stated Jason Rankin of Zap Consulting, a specialized firm established to assist insurance companies in the evaluation of consumer electronics and equipment. When a loss including electronics is sustained and a claim is submitted, insurance adjusters are many times left unprotected without a field resource that understands modern-day technology and how to fairly evaluate the loss.

Insurance companies often hire consulting firms that employ electrical engineers to assist. “These firms claim their electrical engineers can assist with these types of losses including a broad spectrum of other services that they offer. However, electrical engineers are actually educated and trained to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems, such as power transmission and motor control. They are usually trained to evaluate the uses of electricity in order to transmit energy and have no experience in diagnosing electronics for damages,” Rankin remarked.

Rankin’s firm, Zap Consulting, utilizes technicians to evaluate consumer electronics. “Our specialists diagnose equipment to determine reparability, cause of loss, and can also provide comparable replacement quotes when repairs are not feasible,” remarked Rankin. “We keep up with emerging technologies, which is important in this age of integration, as it allows us how to understand the way systems communicate when evaluating a loss and thus how to properly recommend putting the insured back to pre-loss condition.”

Electronics Consulting Firms (ECFs) are blazing the trail in assisting insurance companies with claims involving new technologies that have become commonplace in the home and work environment. Insurance companies are no longer left unprotected using old-school methodologies and skill sets to evaluate these types of losses.

About: Zap Consulting is the nation’s leading provider of electronics assessments. The company leverages a network of more than 600 technicians around the country to provide factual, timely reports that help insurers settle fair and accurately. If you would like more information about the company’s services or to submit an assignment, please visit them online at http://www.zap-consulting.com or contact them by phone at 888-406-0980.

In the past, when a claim professional received a reported lightning strike or possible electric surge claim, the traditional approach to investigating the cause of damage was to obtain a historical lightning report. These reports show if a lightning strike occurred on the specified date within a several mile radius of the loss. Lightning reports have been one of the only resources available to determine the cause of damage and have been the most common practice for years. In many cases, this can be a great starting point for investigations, but it is only the tip of the iceberg in assessing the claim.

After conducting several internal audits in 2010, many insurance companies discovered they had been subjected to fraudulent claims, having paid for damaged electronic items by simply relying on these general weather reports to determine the cause of damage. These audits showed a host of individuals attributed non-weather related damage to electronics to be caused by lightning from the last storm that passed through the area. The storm date is commonly reported as the actual date of loss for the damaged property, even when items are in good working order. With over 20 million cloud-to-ground strikes in the U.S. per year, it is not unlikely to discover that a lightning strike has occurred somewhere in the proximity of the loss location during a given storm, giving further credence to these dubious claims. The audits went on to point out that direct impact from lightning to a structure does not necessarily guarantee that damage to electronics occurred.

Traditionally, a claim professional could retain an independent adjusting company or an engineering firm to attempt to further inspect the claimed damaged electronics. Unfortunately, these resources typically lack the necessary expertise to assess damage to these items. Independent adjusters usually have limited knowledge of electronics, and engineers often have a broad knowledge of electronics and equipment, but no specific experience in evaluation of commercial or residential electronics such as computers or televisions. Moreover, the rate for an electrical engineer can soar to $250 per hour or more, often exceeding the value of the items they are requested to evaluate.

A new niche of experts in this area, known collectively as electronics consulting firms (ECF’s), has surfaced in the claims world to fill this gap. An ECF utilizes electronics technicians to assist claim professionals in these types of specialized investigations. These experts have a deeper knowledge of electronics, and charge hourly fees much lower than those of an electrical engineer. The use of ECFs on claims that include damage to electronics is quickly becoming a required best practice with many insurance companies. They can differentiate between damage caused surge and lightning by conducting thorough inspections of both the insured premise and of individual logic boards and internal fuses within the devices themselves. Individual components within integrated systems can be diagnosed to determine if all of the components are truly damaged, or just a single item within the overall solution. When electronics are damaged, reputable ECFs also provide projected repair costs based upon parts and labor for installation.

ECFs assist insurance companies in accurately identifying exactly what occurred to electronics from a reported lightning or surge claim, as well as how the damage occurred. When coverage is afforded by the insurance carrier, ECFs help them properly return the insured to pre-loss condition. Additionally, ECFs in this specialized niche reduce major claim leakage by identifying electronics that were not damaged, can be repaired, or can be replaced with a like kind and quality product that often costs significantly less than the original purchase price. As the integration of electronics between once independent systems continues to accelerate, claim investigations handling must also adapt to these changes quickly, or risk losing millions of dollars by falling behind.