ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES | OCTOBER 2025 25 ARBITRATION PROCESS An arbitration process was employed with the following purpose: The homeowner asserted a direct claim against the manufacturer individually. The manufacturer denied liability but asserted third party claims against the general contractor and installer seeking contribution or indemnity. The issue for arbitration was whether the manufacturer had proven its contribution or indemnity claim against the general contractor and installer and if so, which party or parties bears responsibility to pay the stipulated amount to the homeowner. The following context was provided in the arbitrator’s ruling on the role of the arbitrator in the process of evaluating expert witness reports: “When faced with conflicting consultant reports, the arbitrator looks to the surrounding facts, the qualifications of the consultants, and specific opinions offered by the consultants.” Product selection – The expert for the manufacturer stated, “The plumbing contractor is directly responsible for the loss, because the manufacturer had nothing to do with product selection.” The arbitrator disagreed with this position and asserted, “The manufacturer made a product with the understanding it would be used in specific applications. The manufacturer repre- sented that the fitting would be an ‘ideal solution’ for residential applications including hot and cold potable water. Regardless of whether the installer or its supplier selected the manufacturer’s product, each company could reasonably rely on information from the product manufacturer as to proper applications. The installer’s selection or use of the product did not constitute a breach of contract or negligence where the manufacturer represented use of the fitting was an ideal solution under these circumstances.” Installation practices – The expert witness for the manufacturer asserted that the crack resulted from overtightening. Two pieces of factual background are especially pertinent to how the court weighed the differing opinions of the expert witnesses for the parties regarding the contribution of installation practices: The product guide published by the manufacturer did not set forth installation instructions for the fitting; and deposition testimony from the plumber (employed by the installer) who performed the installation stated that his standard practice for installation of this and similar fittings was to apply pipe dope (i.e., thread sealant) and Teflon tape to the threads, hand tighten the connection, and then further tighten the connection approximately one quarter turn (90°) using a wrench. The manufacturer’s expert asserted two pieces of evidence as a basis for their claims of overtightening: the use of pipe dope and Teflon tape; and that only one thread of the mating mixing valve was exposed at the opening of the fitting as installed. Because the “application of both pipe dope and tape was used in virtually every installation by the installer and was the installer’s standard practice,” the arbitrator asserted that “the existence of tape and dope on the cracked fitting makes it no more likely than not that the fitting was overtightened.” As for the number of exposed threads at the opening of the fitting, exemplar testing established that the number of exposed mixing valve threads at the outboard end of the adapter after tightening was not a reliable indicator of the extent of tightening past hand tight for this connection. In this case, the arbitrator stated that the assertion of the manufacturer’s expert that one exposed thread of the mating mixing valve proved overtightening was not supported by the surrounding facts of the case. These include the exemplar testing, the similar extent of tightening for the other nearby fittings that had not failed, and the lack of gross damages to the physical condition of the fitting. The arbitrator noted that, “The plaintiff’s (i.e., homeowner) report in this regard is particularly important since evidence of overtightening or related damage would provide additional grounds for recovery by the plaintiff.” CONCLUSION The arbitrator’s ruling, based on the facts summarized above, was as follows: “The manufacturer has not sustained its burden of proof to demonstrate fault or liability of the general contractor or installer. In this matter, the lack of evidence sufficient to establish joint liability of the general contractor or installer defeats any claim by the manufacturer for contribution or indemnity as asserted in the underlying lawsuit.” Therefore, the claims of the manufacturer against the general contractor and the installer were denied. Allocation of liability for the stipulated settlement amount was as follows: manufacturer — $85,000; general contractor — $0; and installer — $0. ~AM&P For more information: Dan Grice, principal materials engineer, Materials Evaluation and Engineering Inc., 13805 1st Ave. N., Ste 400, Plymouth, MN 55441, 763.449.8870, grice@mee-inc.com, mee-inc.com. References 1. 42 USC Chapter 6A, Subchapter XII: Safety of Public Water Systems. 2. Brass and North American Drinking Water Regulations, Copper Development Association Inc., 2020, copper.org/applications/rodbar/pdf/ a7036_brass_drinking_water.pdf. 3. L. Eastep and M. Casey, StressCorrosion Cracking, Failure Analysis and Prevention, Vol 11, ASM Handbook, Eds. B. Miller, R. Shipley, R. Parrington, D. Dennies, ASM International, p 533572, 2021, https://doi.org/10.31399/ asm.hb.v11.a0006785. 4. D. McIntyre and R. Francis, Ammonia Versus Copper and Copper Alloys in Environmental Cracking, p 4550, Materials Technology Institute Inc., 2016.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTYyMzk3NQ==