In 2023, there was two decisions by a federal district court addressing the ability for an investigator to testify when being challenged as to not following NFPA 921. In the first decision the judge stated, “This Court does not find the Defendants' argument persuasive to support the Defendant's objection to Mr. Price's alleged use of NFPA 921. Placing aside the Defendants' reliance on Atlantic Specialty Insurance, defense counsel would have wide latitude to cross exam the expert. Even if this Court were to find that Mr. Price did not strictly adhere to the NFPA 921 guidelines, it does not necessarily prohibit him from eliciting an expert opinion as to how and when the fire started. Regardless, the Court finds that Mr. Price used reliable methods when forming his conclusion, that he had sufficient facts and data to come to that conclusion, that his testimony is relevant to the factfinder, and that he was able to reach a conclusion to a sufficient degree of necessary certainty. (Note, the court uses the term, “sufficient degree of necessary certainty”.”

In the second decision the court stated, “Plaintiff’s motion to exclude relies heavily on Mr. Jones allegedly misapplying National Fire Protection Association standards. The Court finds that these standards are not dispositive of whether a witness is qualified under 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that Defendants have satisfied the rule accordingly for Mr. Jones to give an opinion about fire investigations. (What is important in this decision is the wording, “The Court finds that these standards are not dispositive of whether a witness is qualified under 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence”.)

Hamidah v. PC Baywood, LLC CIVIL ACTION 20-2253 (E.D. La. Jan. 24, 2023)

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group