By John W. (Jack) Poole, III, PE, FSFPE, and Andrew (Drew) Poole, PE
April 11, 2026

In fire and explosion litigation, timing often determines outcomes. Evidence degrades, systems are altered, and critical technical data can be lost before litigation formally begins. While attorneys routinely engage origin-and-cause investigators and forensic specialists, one discipline is frequently brought in too late: fire protection engineering. Fire protection engineers focus on how buildings, systems, fire protection and life safety features are intended to perform during fire events, and how they actually perform under real conditions. Engaging a fire protection engineer early in the investigative process can significantly improve evidence preservation, clarify technical issues, and reduce downstream litigation risk.

The Immediate Risk of Evidence Loss

Modern fire protection systems generate large volumes of data. Fire alarm control panels and remote supervising stations, including monitoring companies, record event histories. Sprinkler systems leave behind physical and hydraulic clues. Emergency communication systems and mass notification interfaces capture activation sequences, timing, and user interactions. These records are often finite, easily overwritten, or unintentionally altered during post-incident restoration.

“The most commonly overlooked evidence typically includes fire alarm system history data. Information from the monitoring company and from the system’s fire alarm panel are important. They can provide a timeline of when devices were activated and reset, information regarding when the system was restored,” according to Jack Poole.

That timeline can be pivotal. It may establish when detection occurred, whether notification was timely, how long systems remained impaired, or whether devices were reset before documentation was preserved.

Once cleanup and repairs begin, opportunities to capture system condition, valve positions, controller data, and configuration settings may be permanently lost. Even well-intentioned actions, restoring service, replacing damaged components, or resetting panels, can eliminate evidence that later becomes central to causation and liability analysis. We have had clients learn, sometimes the hard way, that waiting even a week can materially change the available technical record.

Early involvement of a fire protection engineer allows legal teams to identify what data, and physical evidence should be preserved and why it matters. This guidance can be invaluable before spoliation issues arise or opposing experts form opinions based on incomplete information.

When Good Intentions Compromise Forensic Integrity

Post-incident scenes are often chaotic. Owners want to stabilize operations. Contractors want to clean and secure the building. Fire departments want to return systems to service. These are understandable priorities, but they can unintentionally compromise forensic analysis.

Drawing from his background in fire service and code enforcement, Jack Poole notes:

“Simply moving material and debris at the site of the fire can hamper efforts to determine a fire’s origin and cause. Allowing systems and devices to be reset can overwrite the data needed to provide a complete forensic analysis.”

Even minor disturbances of debris patterns can complicate origin analysis. Resetting alarm panels or restoring impaired systems may overwrite activation histories. Without early and engaged technical oversight, critical evidence can disappear before counsel is fully engaged.

Moving Beyond Origin and Cause

While determining where and how, origin-and-cause, a fire started is often a threshold issue, many disputes ultimately are decided by system performance. Did each of the fire and life safety systems activate as designed? Was the water supply adequate? Were alarms timely and intelligible? Did emergency communications function as required? Were occupants provided sufficient time and information to safely egress the facility?

These questions require specialized engineering analysis that extends beyond fire origin. Fire protection engineers evaluate how active and passive systems interact with building construction, human behavior, maintenance practices, and code requirements. In litigation, this perspective often reframes the discussion from what failed to what was reasonably expected to occur under the applicable standard of care.

Jack Poole’s experience as a professional engineer and former firefighter, fire marshal, and assistant fire chief provides particular insight into this distinction. Having worked in both code enforcement and emergency response, he evaluates system performance not only against written requirements, but also against operational realities faced by occupants and first responders. That context frequently becomes critical when assessing foreseeability, reasonableness, and compliance.

Understanding the Code of Record, and Its Intent

Fire and life safety cases frequently involve competing interpretations of codes and standards. The applicable code of record may differ from current editions, and the intent behind specific provisions is often misunderstood or oversimplified in litigation.

Both Jack and Drew Poole actively serve on National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, technical committees responsible for developing the very standards that govern fire alarm systems, fire suppression systems, life safety features, and specialized occupancies. That involvement provides a perspective that extends beyond simply reading the code text.

As Drew Poole explains:

“It’s important to understand the history of the code, the intent behind its adoption and why requirements were established. Being a part of the process allows us to know why specific words were chosen over others that might have similar meaning but create a different end result.”

In litigation, that distinction can be significant. Understanding why a provision was written a certain way, and what risk it was intended to mitigate, often clarifies whether an installation met the applicable standard at the time it was constructed. It also helps attorneys avoid the common error of applying modern language or expectations retroactively.

Early Technical Input Can Narrow Issues and Reduce Costs

There is a persistent belief that early expert involvement increases litigation costs. In practice, early engagement of a fire protection engineer often reduces them.

An early engineering assessment can quickly identify whether a system-related claim has technical merit, eliminate unsupported theories, and focus discovery on the most relevant issues. In complex cases involving multiple parties, design professionals, contractors, manufacturers, and owners, early technical clarity can help allocate responsibility before positions become entrenched.

Jack Poole’s forensic experience across a wide range of occupancies underscores this value. Early system evaluations often reveal whether issues stem from original design decisions, installation practices, inspection, testing, and maintenance deficiencies, or post-construction modifications. Identifying those factors early allows legal teams to pursue targeted discovery rather than broad, costly fishing expeditions.

Supporting Litigation Strategy, Not Just Testimony

Effective fire protection engineers function as technical partners throughout the litigation lifecycle, not merely as witnesses at deposition or trial. Early involvement allows engineers to assist attorneys with evidence evaluation, expert coordination, deposition preparation, and development of technically sound narratives that resonate with judges and juries.

Clear communication is essential. Complex system interactions must be explained in plain language without sacrificing technical accuracy. Translating engineering analyses into practical, defensible conclusions that align with legal strategy while remaining objective and credible is central to that role.

This approach also helps attorneys anticipate opposing expert opinions and address technical weaknesses before they become liabilities in testimony.

A Practical Consideration for Attorneys

Fire and explosion cases increasingly involve sophisticated building systems, evolving codes, and significant life safety implications. As a result, technical complexity is no longer an exception, it is the norm.

Engaging a fire protection engineer early in the investigative process helps ensure that critical evidence is preserved, technical issues are properly framed, and litigation strategies are informed by how systems were intended to perform, and how they actually did.

For attorneys, the question is not whether fire protection engineering expertise will be required, but whether it will be engaged early enough to make a meaningful difference. Bringing technical resources into a case at the outset allows counsel to preserve critical data, evaluate system performance objectively, and develop a strategy grounded in defensible engineering analysis. When engineers and attorneys collaborate early, clients benefit from clearer risk assessment, stronger positioning, and more predictable outcomes. In fire and life safety litigation, early technical partnership is often the difference between reacting to evidence and shaping the case around it.