Problems We Solve
Problems We Solve
A browsable catalog of the plastic and polymer failure problems our team is asked to solve most often, drawn from 2,000+ client matters since 2004.
Retained by both plaintiff and defense, for technical objectivity, not advocacy.
Showing 146 of 146 problems
Problems by who you are
The same failure looks different depending on your role. Jump to the audience that fits, or search across all of them.
For insurers and subrogation professionals
- An insurer needs a defensible root cause for a water-loss claim caused by a failed plastic pipe or fitting, in a form that will hold up if the claim is disputed or subrogated.
- A carrier needs to know whether a plumbing or fire-sprinkler failure was a product defect, an installation error, or normal wear, so it can decide who to pursue in recovery.
- A subrogation team has a short window before evidence is discarded and needs a fast, documented inspection of the failed component before it is lost.
- An adjuster is facing competing expert opinions on a large property loss and needs an independent, standards-based analysis to break the tie.
- A recovery team needs to establish that a manufacturing or material defect, not the policyholder, caused a catastrophic leak, to support a product-liability recovery.
- An insurer wants an early, low-cost screening opinion on whether a pipe or plastic-component loss is worth pursuing before committing to full litigation.
- A carrier needs the failed part preserved, documented, and analyzed under a defensible chain of custody so the evidence survives challenge.
For attorneys and litigation teams
- An attorney needs a qualified plastics expert to determine and defend the root cause of a failure, and to withstand cross-examination on methodology.
- Counsel needs an independent expert to rebut the other side's failure theory and expose gaps in their testing or reasoning.
- A litigation team needs the failed product examined and tested before spoliation, with results documented to evidentiary standards.
- An attorney needs a clear, jury-ready explanation of a complex polymer failure in plain language backed by data.
- Counsel needs an expert report and disclosure prepared to the applicable court standard, with opinions tied to recognized test methods.
- A legal team needs to distinguish among competing causes: chemical incompatibility, manufacturing defect, installation error, design flaw, or misuse.
- An attorney needs a second, independent opinion to check an existing expert's conclusion before trusting it in a filing.
- A litigation team needs supplemental analysis or additional testing after new evidence or a new failure theory emerges mid-case.
For manufacturers and OEMs
- A manufacturer is seeing field failures of a molded or extruded part and needs to know whether the cause is the resin, the process, the design, or the end-use environment.
- An OEM needs to know whether a supplier's material or a lot of regrind or recycled content is responsible for parts failing in service.
- A producer facing a warranty spike or a potential recall needs a fast, defensible root-cause determination to scope liability and corrective action.
- A manufacturer needs to confirm whether an incoming material actually meets specification before it goes into production.
- An OEM needs to understand why parts fail at a weld line or knit line and how to change the design, tooling, or process to prevent it.
- A producer needs an independent analysis to defend its product against a claim that the material or part was defective.
- A manufacturer needs to qualify a plastic for chemical compatibility with a service fluid, cleaner, or adjacent material before committing to it.
For architects, contractors, building owners, and HOAs
- A building owner or HOA has repeated plumbing or fire-sprinkler leaks across a property and needs to know whether it is a systemic product defect or isolated installation problems.
- A contractor is accused of causing a plastic-pipe or sealant failure and needs an independent analysis to determine whether workmanship or the product is at fault.
- An architect or building owner has a building-envelope failure (leaking sealant, failing coating, or waterproofing) and needs to know why the materials did not perform.
- A property manager needs a defensible root cause for water intrusion to support a claim against a manufacturer, installer, or design professional.
- A building owner needs to know whether a specified plastic material was appropriate for its application and environment, or whether the wrong product was installed.
- An HOA facing widespread pipe failures needs an expert assessment to decide between repair, full repipe, and pursuing recovery.
- A contractor or builder needs pre-installation compatibility testing so incompatible materials never get built into the project in the first place.
For homeowners
- A homeowner suffered water damage from a failed plastic pipe or fitting and needs to know whether a defective product caused it.
- A homeowner has a plastic product that cracked or broke in normal use and wants to know whether it was defective.
- A homeowner is in a dispute with a builder, plumber, or manufacturer and needs an independent expert opinion on what actually failed and why.
- A homeowner needs the failed part preserved and analyzed properly so a potential claim is not lost to discarded evidence.
Problems by failure domain
Grouped by material family and failure context. Each domain lists the specific problems clients bring us and the service pages that cover them.
Cluster
Piping and plumbing
CPVC fire sprinkler and pressurized CPVC (our single most common problem)
- A CPVC fire-sprinkler system cracked and leaked, and we need to know whether the cause was chemical incompatibility, installation, or manufacturing.
- CPVC pipe or fittings failed after contact with an incompatible material (a spray, sealant, cutting oil, tape, foam, or firestop product), and we need to confirm environmental stress cracking as the mechanism.
- A CPVC solvent-cement joint failed, and we need to determine whether it was improper joining, an incompatible cement, or the pipe itself.
- CPVC fittings are cracking in the field, and we need to distinguish a molding or manufacturing defect from a chemical-attack or installation cause.
- A CPVC system experienced widespread cracking across a building, and we need to know whether it is a systemic defect or an installation-practice problem.
- CPVC pipe became brittle and fractured, and we need to establish whether environmental stress cracking, overheating, or aging drove it.
- A dispute turns on whether a specific chemical was actually incompatible with CPVC, and we need standards-based compatibility testing to prove it.
- A CPVC system passed a pressure test but we suspect hidden embrittlement, and we need non-destructive inspection plus strength testing to show whether it is systemically compromised.
- A CPVC failure is near a statute-of-repose deadline, and we need a fast, defensible root cause to preserve the claim.
CPVC chemical resistance (the umbrella across all CPVC applications)
- CPVC is advertised as chemically resistant, but that claim is relative to the chemical. Chemical attack and embrittlement across fire sprinkler, potable water, drain, and industrial CPVC.
PEX pipe failures
- A PEX pipe failed, and we need to know whether oxidative degradation, depleted antioxidants, chlorine or hot-water exposure, or a fitting caused it.
- PEX tubing became brittle and cracked, and we need to determine whether the material was consumed by oxidation in service.
- A PEX system is leaking at fittings or bends, and we need to distinguish installation stress from a material or manufacturing defect.
- We need to measure the remaining service life or oxidative-induction reserve of a PEX material that failed prematurely.
PP-R, PVC, C900, and other pressure piping
- A PP-R or polypropylene pipe or fitting failed, and we need to determine whether the joint, the material, or the service conditions caused it.
- A PVC or C900 pressure pipe fractured, and we need to establish whether it was water hammer or pressure surge, a manufacturing defect, or installation.
- A plastic pressure fitting fractured at an elbow or tee, and the fractography needs to tell us whether the load was a transient surge or a slow crack.
- A buried or pressurized plastic main failed, and we need a root cause that separates product defect from ground movement, over-pressurization, or handling damage.
- A PVC or C900 gasketed or belled joint leaked or separated, and we need to separate a manufacturing defect, an installation error, and a pressure-surge cause.
- A pressurized plastic fitting fractured at an elbow, tee, or stress concentration, and we need fractography to distinguish overpressure from slow crack growth.
Polybutylene and legacy plumbing
- A legacy polybutylene plumbing system is failing, and the owner or insurer needs to know whether the material, the fittings, or the water chemistry is responsible.
- We need to confirm whether a widespread plumbing failure traces to an aging or discontinued plastic piping material.
- A polybutylene system is leaking at multiple points, and a building owner or HOA needs to decide between repair, full repipe, and pursuing recovery.
- An insurer or attorney needs a defensible determination of whether a legacy plastic piping material, its fittings, or the installation caused a water loss.
Municipal, gas, and industrial piping
- A polyethylene gas-distribution pipe or a fusion weld failed, and we need a defensible root cause that separates material, joint, and installation.
- A PVC or C900 sewer or water main cracked, and we need to establish whether it was a manufacturing defect, ground movement, or pressure.
- An HDPE pipe or butt-fusion joint failed, and we need fractography and analysis to find where and why the crack started.
- A cured-in-place pipe liner failed, and we need to determine whether it was the resin cure, the installation, or the condition of the host pipe.
- A municipality, utility, or industrial operator needs an independent failure analysis and a prevention plan so the failure does not recur.
Data-center and mission-critical piping
- A plastic cooling-loop pipe or fitting in a data center failed, and downtime risk means we need a fast, defensible root cause.
- Data-center plastic piping is cracking, and we need to determine whether it is chemical incompatibility, an incomplete solvent-cement joint, or a pressure transient like water hammer.
- A mission-critical plastic piping system needs a failure investigation and a prevention plan so the failure does not recur.
- An operator is planning a plastic cooling-loop build and wants pre-installation material and chemical-compatibility review so failures are designed out before they happen.
Cluster
Building and construction
Building envelope and construction materials
- A caulk or sealant failed or would not cure, and we need to know whether it was incompatible with the adjacent substrate or material.
- Two building products were used together and one degraded the other, and we need to prove the incompatibility.
- A protective or architectural coating failed (peeling, blistering, cracking, or discoloring), and we need the root cause.
- A waterproofing or roofing membrane failed and let water in, and we need to determine whether it was the material, the installation, or weathering.
- A plastic building component degraded under UV or weathering faster than expected, and we need to know why.
- A construction-related plastic failure needs pre-litigation analysis to establish whether the product or the workmanship is at fault.
Protective and architectural coatings
- A protective or tank-lining coating would not cure or delaminated, and we need the cure-chemistry root cause, for example amine blush, mix ratio, or the curing environment.
- An architectural, floor, or pool coating is blistering, peeling, cracking, or discoloring, and we need to know whether it is the formulation, the surface prep, or the application.
- A coating failed and exposed the substrate to corrosion or damage, and we need a defensible cause for a warranty or construction-defect claim.
- Two products were used together and one degraded the coating, and we need to prove the incompatibility.
- A building owner or contractor is in a dispute over a failed coating system and needs an independent opinion on why it did not perform.
Adhesives, sealants, and bonded joints
- An adhesive or sealant would not cure, would not bond, or released from the substrate, and we need to know whether it was the product, the surface prep, or an incompatibility.
- A bonded joint failed in service, and we need to separate an adhesive, substrate, or workmanship cause.
- A solvent cement or structural adhesive is suspected of attacking or embrittling the parts it joined, and we need to confirm the mechanism.
- Two products used together degraded one another, and we need to prove the incompatibility.
- A manufacturer or contractor needs an independent opinion on why an adhesive or sealant system did not perform.
Foams and polyurethane
- A spray polyurethane foam insulation did not cure, gave off an odor, or shrank and pulled away, and we need to know whether the mix ratio, the applicator, or the substrate caused it.
- A rigid or flexible foam lost its cushioning, insulation value, or structure in service, and we need the degradation cause.
- A polyurethane coating, adhesive, or sealant failed to cure or bond, and we need the cure-chemistry root cause.
- A foam product is suspected of releasing an odor or a chemical that attacked an adjacent material, and we need to identify and trace it.
- A manufacturer or installer needs an independent analysis to defend a foam product or application against a claim.
Cluster
Products and manufacturing
Injection-molded and consumer products
- A molded plastic part is fracturing at a weld line or knit line in the field, and we need to confirm the mechanism and its cause.
- A consumer or household product cracked or broke in normal use, and we need to determine whether it was defective.
- A molded part is failing by brittle fracture, and we need to know whether it is the resin, contamination, regrind, residual stress, voids, or the process.
- A part fails intermittently, and we need fractography and analysis to find the flaw that starts the crack.
- A load-bearing plastic product (for example a stool, ladder, or handle) failed and caused an injury, and we need a defensible product-liability root cause.
- A molded part warped, cracked, or lost strength, and we need to separate a design or tooling problem from a material or processing problem.
- A supplier changed a material or added recycled content, and parts started failing; we need to prove the link.
- An exercise or stability ball or other inflatable consumer product burst under normal use and caused an injury, and we need a defensible product-liability root cause.
- A hot-beverage cup lid or other food-contact plastic failed and caused a burn or injury, and we need to determine whether it was the material, the design, or the process.
Automotive and transportation plastics
- An under-hood or fuel-system polymer component cracked or degraded in service, and we need to know whether heat, chemical exposure, or the wrong material grade caused it.
- A molded interior or exterior part is failing by embrittlement, warping, or fracture, and we need to separate a design, tooling, material, or processing cause.
- A supplier changed a resin or added recycled content and parts began failing, and we need to prove the link for a warranty or recall investigation.
- A battery, connector, or electrification component made of plastic failed, and we need a defensible materials root cause.
- A tier supplier and an OEM disagree on responsibility for a field failure, and we need an independent analysis to apportion cause.
Aerospace and defense polymers and composites
- A polymer or composite component in an aerospace or defense assembly failed or fell out of specification, and we need a defensible root cause in a documentation-intensive environment.
- A material must be qualified for a demanding thermal, chemical, or mechanical environment before it is committed to a program, and we need independent verification.
- An incoming lot or a substituted material is suspected of being off-specification, and we need testing to confirm it before it reaches production.
- A bonded or sealed joint on a composite or polymer structure failed, and we need to separate a material, bonding, or process cause.
- A program needs an independent failure analysis and a corrective-action basis after a field or test failure.
Medical devices and healthcare products
- A medical device or component made of plastic failed or cracked, and we need a defensible root cause suitable for a regulated environment.
- A medical plastic degraded after contact with a drug, cleaner, or sterilization process, and we need to identify the interaction.
- A healthcare product is failing in the field, and we need to determine whether it is the material, the design, or the use conditions.
- A device manufacturer needs independent confirmation of why a polymer component failed, for internal investigation or litigation.
Wire, cable, and electrical insulation
- The polymer insulation or jacketing on wire or cable cracked, embrittled, or degraded, and we need to determine whether it was the material, heat, or a chemical in contact with it.
- A plasticizer migrating out of a wire or cable coating attacked an adjacent plastic such as a pipe, and we need to prove the migration and the resulting failure.
- An electrical or appliance component failed and may have contributed to a fire, and we need a defensible materials analysis of the polymer parts.
- A manufacturer wants a greener insulation chemistry, halogen-free, partially bio-based, and flame-retardant to standard, and help selecting and qualifying it.
- An insurer or attorney needs an independent root cause for a wire, cable, or electrical polymer failure behind a loss or injury.
Barrier films, membranes, and flexible packaging
- A multilayer or co-extruded barrier film is tearing or splitting in service, and we need to know whether the cause is a wrong-direction orientation, a processing defect, or the material.
- A packaged or stored product is spoiling or degrading, and we need to determine whether the film lost its oxygen or moisture barrier and why.
- A heat-sealed or welded seam on a film, liner, or pouch is failing, and we need to separate a seal-process problem from a material incompatibility.
- A waterproofing or roofing membrane let water through, and we need to establish whether it was the material, the seam, or weathering.
- An insurer or attorney needs a defensible root cause for a barrier-film or membrane failure that spoiled goods or caused a loss.
Cluster
Materials, chemistry and failure modes
Materials selection, specification, and quality control
- We need to confirm whether a plastic material actually meets its specification before it is used, or after it has failed.
- We need to identify an unknown plastic, additive, or contaminant found in a failed part or product.
- A material was substituted or its formulation changed, and we need to know whether the change caused the failure.
- We need to select the right plastic for a demanding chemical or thermal environment and verify it before committing.
- Incoming lots are inconsistent, and we need testing to catch off-spec, contaminated, or over-recycled material before it reaches production.
Rubber, elastomers, seals, and gaskets
- A seal, O-ring, or gasket leaked or lost sealing force, and we need to know whether it was the compound, the cure, chemical swelling, or thermal aging.
- An elastomeric or rubber component hardened, cracked, or took a permanent set in service, and we need the degradation root cause.
- A hose, boot, or flexible component failed, and we need to separate a material, molding, or service-environment cause.
- A silicone or rubber part is suspected of being incompatible with a fluid, lubricant, or adjacent material, and we need compatibility testing.
- A supplier changed an elastomer formulation and field failures followed, and we need to prove the connection.
Composites and fiberglass-reinforced plastics (FRP)
- A composite or fiberglass structure cracked, delaminated, or lost stiffness, and we need to know whether it was the layup, the resin cure, the fiber-matrix bond, or the service load.
- An FRP tank, pipe, or panel failed, and we need to separate a manufacturing defect from an installation or overload cause.
- A bonded composite joint failed, and we need fractography and analysis of the bond line.
- A composite part is absorbing moisture or degrading in its environment faster than expected, and we need to know why.
- A manufacturer needs an independent analysis to defend a composite product against a defect claim.
Odor, contamination, and permeation
- A plastic product or package is giving off an odor or tainting its contents, and we need to identify the compound and trace its source.
- A packaged or stored product is degrading, and we need to know whether the plastic lost its barrier to oxygen, moisture, or a migrating chemical.
- A contaminant is suspected in a resin, a part, or a finished product, and we need to identify it and determine how it got there.
- A food-contact or consumer plastic is alleged to have leached or transferred a substance, and we need a defensible chemical analysis.
- A permeation or migration problem is causing a downstream failure, and we need to prove the pathway.
Fire, flammability, and ignition of plastics
- A plastic product or component is suspected of igniting or spreading a fire, and we need a defensible opinion on the polymer's role in origin and cause.
- A material is failing a flammability rating (for example UL 94, FMVSS 302, or a building-code flame-spread limit), and we need to know whether it is the resin, the flame-retardant package, or the processing.
- A flame-retardant additive is suspected of being under-dosed, degraded, or migrating out, and we need to confirm whether the product still meets its fire-performance claim.
- An electrical or appliance component may have overheated or ignited, and we need a materials analysis of the polymer housing, connector, or insulation.
- A manufacturer needs to defend a product against a claim that its plastic caused or worsened a fire, with testing that separates the plastic from the true ignition source.
- A building material or assembly is alleged to have contributed to fire spread, and we need an independent flammability and smoke analysis.
Accreditations & Affiliations
Independent accredited labs across North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Australia, and the Middle East
ISO 17025 / A2LA-Accredited Affiliate Labs
ASTM International Member
SPE
ACS
NAFE
NFPA
Request a Free Expert Review
Tell us about your case. Our plastic expert witnesses typically respond within 24 hours with an initial assessment of how we can help.
24-Hour Response
Initial case assessment within one business day.
Prefer to Call?
+1 (989) 281-4465