Maynard Clark v. Auto Owners Insurance—Lightning? What Lightning?

This chapter discusses the case of Maynard Clark's 1992 furniture store fire, which was caused by lightning but falsely declared to be an arson fire. The fire investigator made numerous errors, including misinterpreting evidence and discounting eyewitness accounts of lightning. The case was complicated by issues with chemical analysis of fire debris, particularly the difficulty in distinguishing between asphalt smoke residue and petroleum-based liquids such as kerosene. The author developed a new technique to differentiate asphalt smoke condensate, which is created whenever fire attacks an asphalt roof, from kerosene or diesel fuel. This research led to improvements in fire debris analysis and was later incorporated into standard testing methods. The chapter also reveals misconduct in the investigation, including intimidation of a witness and withholding of evidence. It emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation and proper communication among involved parties. The case ultimately settled in Clark's favor, costing the insurance company two orders of magnitude more than if they had paid the original claim. The chapter concludes by discussing similar cases where the author's technique helped correct misidentifications of asphalt smoke residue, highlighting the ongoing importance of accurate fire debris analysis in insurance claims and legal proceedings.