Lanford Brothers Company, Inc.

Review: Lanford Brothers is currently performing work on Route 66 on the bridges found both East & Westbound between mile markers 14 & 15. Heading down 66 on Saturday August 15 I hit a bump at the bridge that the company is performing work at. The bump is due to the company pouring too much concrete on the bridge. There were no signs up until after my complaint and therefore myself and others were hitting the bridge at an approximate speed of the approved speed limit on that section of the highway (70 mph). As I hit the bump and proceeded across the bridge, my windshield cracked. I called VDOT who gave me the Lanford Brother contact info. I spoke to [redacted] who got their insurance adjustor in touch with me. [redacted] with the Insurance company, based out of Iowa, took my claim information on August 20 and let me know that they would be in touch with me after speaking to the company. After not receiving a call from either Lanford Brothers or the insurance company for 10+ days I contacted VDOT and received other contact info. After leaving two additional voicemails I finally received a call back from [redacted] on September 2 letting me know that I needed to speak with [redacted] and that they had mailed me a letter regarding the denial of my claim. [redacted] let me know that the decision to deny my claim based solely on the conversation between himself and Lanford Brothers and their statement that the work performed on the bridge was done so in the correct manner and that there was no proof that my windshield damage was due to their misjudgment on the amount of concrete poured on the bridge. VDOT seems to disagree however as the concrete was corrected at the end of August by pouring asphalt on top of the extra concrete to even it out. I was told by [redacted] that this corrective work was performed by a different company hired by VDOT to make the correction. The correction being needed proves to me that the work performed by Lanford Brothers was unsatisfactory. I was also informed that they disagree with my claim regarding signs not being placed until August 18. I can assure you that the signs were placed as I stated, after my claim, and then an additional electronic sign was placed just past the on ramp from exit 13 on 66E warning of the roadwork being performed. I feel that it is unfair that I have to go through my insurance company to have my windshield replaced. The windshield being replaced should be done in good faith as they know just as well as myself and VDOT that the work they performed was unsatisfactory and took weeks to complete/ correct.Desired Settlement: I would like my windshield to be replaced as per my original claim with their office and insurance adjustor.

Business

Response:

We understand the claimant’s frustration in having to deal with a cracked windshield and apologize to her for the inconvenience. I spoke with our safety coordinator, and reviewed all the correspondence from VDOT, our insurance company, and the claimant. The incident occurred on Saturday, Aug. 15th and a report was forwarded to our loss control person on Wednesday, Aug. 19th. Our claims person talked to the claimant and wrote her a letter denying her claim on the same day. Based on what he heard, it was determined that the breakage was due to a road hazard, which means we had no control over the incident. Furthermore, from the e-mails I read, she stated to both VDOT and our safety coordinator that she wasn’t sure if her windshield cracked because of the bump or a rock striking it.

As far as our work zone, we are required by VDOT to place all our work signs

(Including a bump sign when needed) in accordance with their specifications. The bridge repair work we did on this bridge is typical of the work we have done for VDOT for over 30 years, and we have consistently performed our work in a safe manner. I can find no correspondence from VDOT telling us we had our traffic control devices set-up wrong on this project.

We suggested the claimant get her insurance agent to contact our carrier if she wanted to challenge this ruling. We depend on our claims person to make a judgment on our claims with the intent to be as fair to the claimant as possible. We know that it may not always appear that way, but we truly want to be fair and impartial in resolving any issues that pertain to us and our work sites.