96 LAWYER MONTHLY EXPERT WITNESS AWARDS 2025 “Our role is to cut through complexity with science, integrity, and impartiality.” a detailed photo analysis of the construction work, fire burn patterns, historic product fabrication and installation standards and materials ignition and flame spread properties. The analysis concluded the fireplace installation defects were the only possible fire cause and it was scientifically impossible for the insulation to be the source of flame spread. During another engagement, we found that building water damage resulted from roof configuration design defects that prevented drainage. It was also found that the design was not supervised by a licensed design entity and certificates of construction completion were issued knowing defects remained. Your expertise has been sought by national regulators, professional bodies, and government agencies. In your view, what regulatory changes or industry-wide improvements would reduce the frequency of disputes? Good business conduct has the best potential to reduce disputes frequency but very difficult to consistently regulate. To an extent, acceptable practices are regulated through legal precedence. The main problem is that legal rulings do always make their way back to inform regular operational procedures. I believe there is a huge opportunity for industry-wide education programs to better communicate the industry participants to achieve better project expectations alignment. In recent years, several trade associations and insurers have started to offer courses based on the most frequent topics of dispute that increase industry awareness and help safeguard businesses against litigation. Construction disputes often involve conflicting technical interpretations and contractual obligations. What are some of the most common missteps that lead to litigation, and how can they be avoided? Several checks and balances exist throughout the industry that help prevent differing technical or contract interpretations from becoming the main case of litigation. More often disputes arise from poorly constituted building project teams selected solely on the basis of cost or when team member responsibilities are downplayed or marginalized. The most successful building projects fairly compensate their team members and allow for high-functioning working relationships to develop and effectively manage discourse throughout. Teams having an appreciation for other member responsibilities, park their egos and maintain strong communications possess a natural propensity for avoiding litigation. The best regulatory and technical standards or forms of agreement cannot account for project team relationship intangibles. Technical and contract gaps are much easier to mitigate than conduct disparities. The case files we have reviewed frequently demonstrate adversarial or sparse communications at the early project stages that when unmitigated lead to downstream legal disputes. Good project management has the potential to nurture a productive team setting to avoid litigation. Could you share some examples of cases where your analysis was critical in influencing the litigation outcomes? Yes. Our analysis has influenced outcomes on cases involving the duty of care of designers and builders and management, design and technical deficiencies leading to building damage and financial loss. In one case, our analysis of a faulty fireplace system installation causing a fire defended an insulation installer wrongfully accused of doing work leading to the building loss. Our investigation was critical in preventing the defendant’s bankruptcy. Our forensic investigations relied upon a deep understanding of interconnected responsibilities between owners, general contractors, installers and suppliers. We determined that defective fireplace system installations caused the fire rather than the insulation installation work. The process included
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz