Two situations came to my attention this past week to which you may be able to relate. One was a case involving an engineered wood flooring product that was installed in a home, supposedly with all conditions being acceptable for the installation. The dealer took moisture readings of the substrate, which indicated no compromising levels. The material was acclimated, and the installation conducted according to the manufacturer's and wood association's instructions.

Shortly after the installation, the retailer received a call from the consumer that the floor was lifting. Sure enough, when the dealer went to inspect the floor it was indeed reacting. He pulled some boards from the box of leftover material to find the same thing existed in some of the remaining boards.

The floor was inspected by an independent agent sent by the manufacturer. He confirmed the condition existed but stated it was installation related. The dealer did not agree because of the boards he had from the box that were also warped. After another inspection, the inspector said the same thing-installation was the problem. The dealer wasn't buying these determinations, and we agreed that if the boards in the box were doing the same thing as the ones on the floor that the material itself was suspect.

There are tests that can be conducted to determine whether the wood is the problem. The results, along with all the details of the installation, a chronology of what has occurred, digital photos of the site and actual samples of the material, are all evidence that can be examined to determine exactly what the problem is, why it exists and who caused it. Circumstance, situations and appearance of a problem can be interpreted incorrectly, taken out of context, gathered incompletely or overshadowed by opinions, but the pure science and laws of physics applied will never lie.

When it comes to blatant defects this second situation takes the cake. The dealer in this case ordered 60 yards of material at a cost of over $24 per yard. The material arrived, was taken to the consumer's home, furniture was removed, old carpet taken up and the carpet rolled out to cut. When the carpet was rolled the installer immediately noticed it had bands in it- short, broken lines similar to markings on a highway.

The installer immediately called the store, and the dealer came out to look at the carpet. He called the mill to complain and wanted it to pay for lost time and labor. The claims analyst said the dealer should have inspected the carpet first- which she was right in saying- but the carpet should have been inspected at the mill first and not been shipped this way. The dealer sent photos of the product and the marks are clearly a manufacturing-related issue.

However, they may not have been noticed by the inspectors as this condition could result at roll up- after inspection. The dealers' photos speak volumes and clearly indicate the cause of the problem and where it took place. After he contacted the rep the problem was resolved to his complete satisfaction, but he wasn't happy about the experience.

These types of situations are becoming more common, and I'll give you a tip: They'll likely get tougher on claims now that residential business is off. When business slows down, claims seem to pick up. For this reason, there should be more diligence on everyone's part; the manufacturer should make sure no obviously defective carpet is shipped, and the dealer should inspect every piece that comes in before installation. You should all be a little more paranoid about quality right now, it'll save you money.