News & Insights

For construction teams, architects, and building owners, the aftermath of a fire represents more than property damage. It’s the beginning of a complex fire investigation process where preconceived notions can derail objectivity, and where being right doesn’t always mean being protected. The reality is stark: even when a company’s work had nothing to do with the fire’s cause, defending against claims can cost $50,000 to $70,000 in legal and expert fees. Some firms write checks for $20,000 simply to exit the process, not because they’re liable, but because it’s cheaper than proving they’re not.

This disconnect between culpability and cost has transformed fire investigations into high-stakes business decisions. Understanding how investigations work, what evidence matters, and how findings translate into liability isn’t just about defending against claims—it’s about preventing a business from becoming an easy target when people start looking for deep pockets to pursue.

Context & current landscape

Fire investigations present a unique challenge: the very nature of fire destroys the evidence investigators need most. The greatest damage typically occurs at the origin, exactly where answers lie. This paradox shapes everything that follows, from how investigations unfold to how liability gets assigned months or even years later.

Construction teams, product manufacturers, builders, maintenance professionals, and design firms regularly find themselves pulled into these negotiations, sometimes more than a year after the fire. By then, scenes have been cleared, memories have faded, and the only evidence might be photographs taken by others. These liability cases often begin with a simple letter stating that a company’s product, design, or work “may be related to the cause of a fire.” That letter signals the start of a process where business calculations can override questions of actual responsibility.

The shift toward settlement-driven outcomes has created a system where writing a check often makes more financial sense than mounting a defense. This reality makes it critical for construction professionals to understand not just how fires get investigated, but how those investigations translate into legal exposure, and how to protect themselves before the first spark ignites.

Understanding the investigation process creates a protective measure

When fire investigators arrive at a scene, their approach follows the scientific method, but with a critical twist. As one experienced investigator puts it, showing up with “as little information as possible and a completely open mind” is essential.

Contrary to what many expect, experienced investigators don’t start with interviews. Eyewitness accounts, while sometimes helpful, rank among the most subjective and often inaccurate elements of an investigation. Physical evidence tells a more reliable story. Burn patterns and fire effects serve as the primary tools for determining origin, with investigators using arc surveying, physical testing, and thought experiments to test their hypotheses—essentially trying to disprove their theories until only one remains standing.

The systematic approach resembles assembling a jigsaw puzzle without the box top. Investigators begin with a 360-degree assessment of the incident, starting from areas of least damage and working toward areas of greatest destruction. This methodical progression allows them to build a picture from surviving evidence before reaching the heavily damaged origin area.

Response time after the fire is important, though influence is often overestimated. While investigators ideally arrive within 24 hours of being called (typically three to four days after the fire), they can work with scenes that are months or even years old. In liability cases, it’s common for investigators to get involved a year or more after the fire, relying on photographs, security videos, fire reports, and other documentation to reconstruct what happened.

Documentation is the first line of defense

In fire investigations, missing documentation raises immediate red flags. When records are sparse or non-existent, investigators and attorneys take notice—and not in a good way. The absence of proper documentation during design and construction phases can transform a straightforward defense into an expensive legal battle.

The most critical documentation involves any client-driven deviations from recommended designs. When building owners or contractors push for changes that compromise original specifications, those alterations must be recorded in detail. These records can mean the difference between a favorable summary judgment and a drawn-out litigation process that drains resources and damages reputations.

Consider how investigators present their findings: photographs serve as the primary evidence, telling the story of their analysis and allowing judges or juries to see the proof themselves. Documentation should be equally visual and comprehensive. Progress photos, inspection reports, change orders, and correspondence about design modifications all become crucial when investigators start piecing together how a fire started and spread.

The key is maintaining records that demonstrate not just what was built, but why decisions were made and who made them. When clients request cost-saving measures that affect fire safety, like extensive electrical circuits designed with the assumption that “the owner will only use several receptacles at any given time,” those conversations and decisions need to be documented. Years later, when every outlet has something plugged in and half of them feed power strips, proper documentation can protect a company against responsibility for predictable misuse.

Design with human error in mind

Most fires stem from human elements—people making poor decisions or misusing systems in ways designers never anticipated. While it’s impossible to anticipate every creative way someone might misuse a building, understanding common patterns helps create more resilient designs.

Start by looking at how people actually use spaces, not how they’re supposed to. That receptacle designed for occasional use likely has something plugged into both outlets, with one feeding a power strip supporting five or six additional devices. The kitchen grill in a restaurant might seem safely positioned, but it stands between diners and the emergency exit.

Smart design incorporates redundancy that goes beyond code requirements. Sprinkler systems provide critical life safety protection, but compartmentalization adds another layer of defense. When designing industrial facilities, consider physical separation between high-value assets and hazardous operations. A $4 million testing laboratory housed in the same building as a hazardous production line creates unnecessary risk, even with state-of-the-art fire protection systems.

These design decisions become especially important when fire protection systems aren’t properly maintained, a reality more common than anyone likes to admit. Duplication of safety factors helps cover the gap between intended performance and real-world conditions. Think of it as designing for degraded conditions rather than optimal ones.

Respond strategically when named in a claim

Most contractors, architects, and building owners discover they’re involved in litigation when a letter states their company “may be related to the cause of the fire.”  This moment marks a critical juncture where a company’s response can either minimize damage or compound it. The first rule is simple but often ignored: take it seriously. This isn’t a request for information, but a notice of intent to litigate.

The first step a company should take is to contact its insurance carrier. Waiting to gather more information or assess the situation is a mistake. The clock starts ticking the moment notice is received, and delays can compromise coverage or defense. The legal team should be notified as well, as they’ll coordinate with the insurance carrier and guide the response.

The natural human reaction to being accused is self-defense—to explain why the accusation must be wrong. Resisting this urge is critical. Providing detailed explanations to the other side, hoping they’ll realize their mistake and walk away, almost never works. Instead, companies hand over information that gets used to refine the case against them. Attorneys should handle all communications.

Behind the scenes, companies should provide their forensic team with everything requested, but always through attorneys. This preserves attorney-client privilege and prevents internal assessments from becoming ammunition for the other side. Forensic experts need complete information to mount an effective defense, including any documentation that might seem unfavorable. It’s better for the defense team to know about potential weaknesses early than to be surprised during depositions.

Perhaps most importantly, companies must separate emotion from strategy. Being named in a fire claim feels personal, especially when the work met all standards. But this is fundamentally a business decision. Sometimes, the most strategic response is writing a check because it’s less than the cost of legal fees. Other times, fighting makes sense, particularly when reputation or future business is at stake. Data and economics should guide these decisions, not pride or anger.

Implementation challenges

The gap between theory and reality in fire prevention often comes down to human unpredictability. No amount of careful design can fully account for the creative ways people misuse buildings and systems. While designers can anticipate common mistakes, the variations seem limitless—from daisy-chaining power strips to storing combustibles near heat sources to disabling safety systems that prove inconvenient.

The real problems compound when oversights occur, and someone attempts to cover them up. As forensic investigators know, the devil truly is in the details. When people start down the path of concealing mistakes or outright lying about them, they inevitably create discrepancies. Experienced investigators excel at finding these inconsistencies, turning what might have been a simple oversight—a learning opportunity—into evidence of deliberate deception. The cover-up often proves far more damaging than the original error.

Budget pressures create another layer of complexity. The temptation to cut corners during design or construction can seem harmless at the time. Creating an extensive electrical circuit to save on wiring costs, assuming the owner will use outlets sparingly, might pass initial inspections. But real-world usage patterns inevitably push these compromised systems beyond their intended limits.

Post-fire complications add yet another challenge. Scene contamination and alterations can severely hamper investigations, especially when multiple parties need access for different purposes—insurance adjusters, restoration crews, and investigators representing various interests. Each group that enters potentially disturbs evidence, and without proper coordination, critical information disappears. By the time some investigators arrive months or years later, they’re working from photographs and trying to piece together a puzzle where many pieces have been swept away.

How Salas O’Brien can help

Salas O’Brien’s forensic engineering team brings a unique perspective to fire investigation and litigation support because we understand what it takes to build a case from both sides. Our investigators know how to recognize when opposing experts haven’t followed industry standards or when investigations have been compromised by preconceived notions. This depth of knowledge helps us anticipate opposition strategies and identify the gray areas that become leverage in negotiations.

Our approach beings with the objective identification of facts and continues through the formulation and analysis of hypotheses to the discovery of the truth of a matter. Depending on each investigation’s demands, we assemble multidisciplinary teams that might include engineers, chemists, and other specialists. Whether we’re examining electrical arc patterns, analyzing mechanical failures, or testing chemical traces, we maintain the systematic objectivity that complex fire cases require.

For construction teams and building owners facing claims, we provide clear-eyed assessments of both liability and strategic options. Sometimes that means building a robust defense that demonstrates why your work wasn’t involved in the cause. Other times, it means helping you understand when settlement makes more business sense than prolonged litigation. Throughout the process, we help you navigate the gap between being right and being protected.

Ready to review your fire protection strategies or need support with an ongoing claim? Contact our forensic engineering team to discuss how we can help protect your interests before, during, and after fire-related incidents: [email protected]

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].