Jim

You are right about taking the heat on this subject, but I really do not mine. Not sure many will want to comment in the open on this subject. What brought this about was an expert’s answer in a deposition. He said his findings met the standard of our industry because the confidence level of certainty that his opinion was correct was greater than 50%. After reading the expert’s deposition I did research to see if what he was saying was true and found out he was right. Then I put myself in the position of being the person having the fire. Then I got scared. If this is our industry standard, what does it say about our industry. If I play red or black at a roulette table I have a 50% chance of being right. Is that all we are capable of doing?

I believe the level of certainty for determining both the origin and the cause should not be based on a percentage. You either know or do not know, but one can not have it in the middle. I understand the 50% deals with the level of proving most civil cases, but I do not think it should have anything to do with the level of determining the origin and cause.

Pat made a suggestion for 921 to include a third level of what he renamed confidence. The word he used for this level was "Certain". His idea better explain the different levels, but it was shot down. In their statement of explanation for the rejection, the committee said, “Although the committee believes that the current text needs modification, the committee does not believe this proposal resolves the issue.” This to me indicates the committee recognizes there is a problem using the present text in the document. I did not see in the ROP where they addressed this problem and made the necessary corrections.


I thought this would bring a comment from you, and I am glad to see you feel the same way I do.