I-4: Domain of damage
Drivers who seek compensation after cars are mangled face daunting odds
Interstate 4 drivers have reported construction zone incidents in which their cars were skewered by projectiles, bombarded with concrete, doused in oil, submerged in floodwater, broken by potholes and whacked with light poles.
But most motorists who have filed claims found that it’s extraordinarily difficult to get reimbursed for the dents, scrapes or far worse inflicted by the rebuilding of I-4 in Central Florida that began three years ago.
Of the 475 damage claims from early 2015 until this June, only 15 percent — 66 — were reimbursed, with the average payment being $736, according to documents the Orlando Sentinel obtained from the state Department of Transportation and the company rebuilding I-4, SGL Constructors.
The largest share of claims is for “debris” damage. Of 275 of those claims, 16 were paid an average of $345 each and 10 were under investigation. The rest were denied.
As construction has intensified, SGL has been more likely to reject or pay less for claims.
Of the first 237 claims, 43 were paid a total of $36,706; of the more recent 238 claims, 23 were paid a combined $11,860.
Most denied were the 81 claims arising from hitting traffic cones or barrels. Not one got a payment.
SGL did not respond to requests for an interview.
Adrienne Brown-Haynes said that a year ago she came upon three cones placed in a row and partly blocking her lane without warning and for no apparent reason.
“I did not know a cone could do that much damage,” she said. The repair estimate for her smashed bumper and lights was nearly $1,000, a cost in the range of what many drivers have had to bear.
I-4’s owner, the state of Florida, has provided little oversight on behalf of motorists. And neither the state nor the road builder has alerted motorists to the option of appealing a denied claim. White-knuckle driving
Called I-4 Ultimate, the $2.3 billion over- haul of the 60-year-old freeway into a hybrid with toll lanes extends 21 miles from north of State Road 434 in Seminole County through Orlando to west of Kirkman Road in Orange County. About half done, work originally was scheduled to finish in early 2021. The builder is now seeking another eight months and $100 million for the project.
The job has been described by state officials as the most challenging ever in Florida as far as exposing such a volume of traffic to such lengthy and massive construction. As many as 150,000 cars a day funnel through an urban gauntlet on a shifting labyrinth of temporary lanes divided by often indistinct lines.
“That is a very dangerous road, and my guys know it,” said Edward Zengel Jr. of Edward Zengel & Son Express of Fort Myers, who urged his drivers to avoid I-4 construction after a pair of serious accidents there involving his company’s trucks.
Preliminary analysis shows the accident rate has fluctuated in the I-4 work zone, according to the Department of Transportation.
A kaleidoscope of laborers, dump trucks, power shovels, newly driven pilings, massive pipes, mountains of dirt and mounds of rubble is often feet from cars, separated by movable concrete walls known as Jersey Barriers.
A few claims, ultimately denied, blamed damage on the “confusion” of construction.
Many motorists have described incidents occurring amid “white-knuckle” stretches of traffic, when they were hemmed in left and right by other cars, were fearful of being rear-ended, and reluctantly or instinctively collided with debris or plowed into a pothole rather than risk swerving or braking.
“They are trying to keep the flow of traffic going at highway speeds through a construction site,” said Marshall Davis, a Jacksonville lawyer representing a driver injured in the I-4 work zone by a wind-blown sign.
“You really have no place to bail out because you have these concrete barriers right at the edge of the lane, so you can’t go anywhere,” he said. “You stay in your lane or you die is what it boils down to.”
Builder ‘assumed the risk’
The road builder, SGL Constructors, is a joint venture of Skanska, Granite and Lane, three major construction companies. They joined with other firms to create I-4 Mobility Partners, which won the I-4 job in 2014.
The state Department of Transportation takes no part in determining claims and has not reviewed SGL’s handling of them.
Asked if there have been injuries related to vehicle damage, Loreen Bobo, a state Department of Transportation manager overseeing I-4 Ultimate, said: “I can’t think of any.”
Copies of claims provided to the department by SGL referred to at least five injuries, including to a motorcyclist and another cited in a lawsuit filed by Davis.
Bobo said due diligence is appropriate on the part of SGL in reviewing claims.
“When the claims are being paid, that is taxpayers’ money,” she said.
Asked to elaborate, Bobo clarified that taxes and tolls will fund the project, but payments for claims are the obligation of the road builder.
She said when I-4 Mobility Partners won the $2.3 billion job, it “assumed the risk” of paying for damage to vehicles from construction.
From the first three years of work, SGL has paid motorists a total of $48,566. “The amount of claims has been minimal given the project’s size and scope,” stated SGL in an email.
Filing a claim
Road builders and transportation officials often say that what happens to cars in construction zones is not their liability.
They deem tire, glass and other losses as blameless road hazards or as the fault of another motorist, when, for example, a board, tool or other object falls from their vehicles to hit or be struck by someone else.
Yet angered, traumatized or otherwise motivated, hundreds of I-4 drivers were convinced the contractor was to be blamed for damages and pursued a claim despite the difficulties involved.
A claims form and instructions are available on the state’s i4ultimate.com website behind the tab: “CONSTRUCTION MAP & INFO.” Many drivers said they learned of the form through law enforcement.
Drivers typically provided a written narrative of what happened and attached witness accounts, repair estimates, police reports and photographs of the damage. They had their claims notarized and some signed off with remarks such as “… could have been killed.”
What claims reveal
SGL refused access to claims for months. A claim “is not a public document,” Doran Bosso, an I-4 Mobility Partners lawyer, said in an email late last year.
Prompted by a Sentinel inquiry early this year, Seminole County Commissioner Bob Dallari, then chairman of MetroPlan Orlando, a regional agency of mayors and commissioners, asked for the claims. “What does SGL have to hide?” he said. The state’s transportation department eventually obtained and released copies.
Among what they reveal is a strikingly common element of successful claims: undeniable evidence that roadwork had been at fault.
Dale Osteen, a theme-park visitor from Virginia, was bombed in his rental car two years ago by rubble from an overpass in Orlando. The windshield and roof were smashed. Police arrived as jackhammers continued to rain debris onto the interstate.
“They knew they got caught,” said Osteen, who filled out a claim but never learned what repairs to the rental car cost.
Steven Kuhn of Ohio plowed through a gaping pothole near Colonial Drive that disabled his and other cars, resulting in a police response and shutdown of lanes. His repairs cost nearly $1,200.
Michael Morris of Orlando spotted through his sunroof a temporary light pole toppling toward him. He braked and swerved, but the Altima he had just purchased was still hit. SGL paid $3,321 for the repairs.
John Rayburn of Winter Haven ran over the same pole. He was paid $466 for a wheel, two tires and an alignment. Proof of fault in that multicar incident, hw said, would have been difficult to refute: “The light pole they had to drag off the road.”
While running into large objects or potholes is more likely to result in a payment from SGL, there appears to be little chance the builder would ever pay for damage from a cone or barrel.
According to drivers, SGL denied claims related to cones and barrels by asserting that another motorist had knocked the traffic devices out of place or because of insufficient evidence of a cone’s placement.
Some drivers were puzzled over how they