Questions smolder over apartment fire

Since fire destroyed the Burncliff Apartments building Dec. 22, questions remain over whether the management should have responded sooner to resolve electrical circuit problems that former residents say cropped up before the fire.

The fire started with a short in a 240-volt circuit that was dedicated to a third-floor dryer. That wiring, which ran upward from a ground-level transformer, shorted out behind the wall of a second-floor laundry room and sparked the fast-spreading fire, Burnsville Fire Marshal Doug Nelson said.

He said the city and state fire marshal's investigation is finished. A damage estimate for the fire that displaced nearly 200 people and destroyed much of their belongings was not yet available. Fire investigators were not able to tell what caused the short, Nelson said. He said the building had been inspected on Dec. 1. He did not have access to the results this weekend. Fire inspectors don't look inside walls, he added.

Investigators for the insurance company, Lloyd's of London, now have the section of shorted-out wire, which the insurer can have electrical engineers further examine as part of any private investigation, Nelson said.

Former tenants in the three-story building said that, in recent weeks, the coin-operated dryers would shut off prematurely, and maintenance workers would apparently flip a tripped breaker back on so that people could dry their clothes. Management had also put up "out of order" signs by at least one electric dryer, tenants said, but the problems continued until the fire.

Frank French, chief operating officer of properties for the Goodman Group, which owns Burncliff, told the Star Tribune last week that he knew nothing of dryer and electrical circuit problems before the fire. Friday night, he said he would leave all details about the fire's cause and origin to the fire marshal to release.

John Goodman, chairman of the Goodman Group, was unavailable for comment Friday.

Could the management's response to the tenants' complaints about electrical and dryer problems be a violation of building code or any other ordinance? Jeannette Bach, a researcher for the League of Minnesota Cities, said Friday that there is not a general rule to which she could point. Rather, any such violation would have to be determined by attorneys on a case-by-case basis, Bach said.

"It would all depend on how the facts unravel and whether a violation of the city ordinance was even brought into the mix," she said.

J. David Prince, an expert at William Mitchell College of Law, said the situation might suggest carelessness or negligence. That's if one assumes that the tenants' complaints were reflective of a problem with the wiring, and that the problem should have been addressed by upgrading the circuit or other repairs, he said.

"Leaving aside any question about a code violation, it might just suggest they were negligent in the way they were maintaining the building," said Prince, who specializes in tort law, including general negligence. "It would be analogous to knowing that there was loose carpeting in the hallway that people could trip over. A building owner or manager has the general responsibility to maintain the premises in a safe condition."

Nelson said he and his investigators had spoken to people who had unrelated problems with a soda machine, which is served by a different circuit. While some residents told the Star Tribune that they had experienced problems with the dryers shutting down, Nelson said those issues were not raised by other tenants who spoke to investigators.

He also said any questions of negligence or code violations would be left to the judicial system to address.

Even if there were some type of negligence in a fire, an insurance company would typically have to pay the claims, said Bill Walsh, a spokesman for the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

There could be lawsuits, too, he said. An insurer can go to court, but in most cases, the insurer who is suing goes after a third party, such as a contractor who might have done subpar work, he said.

"The building should be insured for a fire and unless the owner started the fire himself, the policy should cover it," Walsh said.

On Friday, Walsh also said that the department is concerned because it has learned that some renters from Burncliff's destroyed building have been contacted by their insurance companies asking them to sign over part or all of the gift they received from the anonymous donor.

"There is no claim for the insurance company on this gift money and consumers should not sign any documents or hand over that money to their insurance company," Walsh said.

He urged consumers with questions to contact the department's Consumer Response Team at 651-296-2488.

Joy Powell • 952-882-9017