Questions received this quarter from counsel and insurer staff, answered.

Yes. The firm regularly accepts retainers on matters that have been opened for more than ninety days; the practical limit is the integrity of the available evidence. Where the scene has been remediated, decommissioned, or partially reconstructed, the firm is explicit in the engagement letter and in the sealed report that the scene was not preserved under chain of custody from the time of the loss. In some matters this is enough to invalidate the working hypotheses we would otherwise be able to support; in others the photographic and documentary record is sufficient.

The firm withdraws from the matter without exception. The conflict-check protocol runs against ten years of retained Case Files; conflicts identified at intake disqualify the retainer outright. Conflicts surfacing after intake (typically because a defendant who was not initially named has been joined in the matter) trigger immediate withdrawal, return of unspent retainer, and a written notification to all parties. The firm does not pursue continued engagement under a waiver. The withdrawal is on the strength of NSPE Code §III.4 and is non-negotiable.

The firm prefers a single engagement letter signed by counsel of record for both parties, with the joint retention noted on the face of the letter. Where two carriers are retaining the firm jointly on a coverage matter, the same approach applies. The firm does not enter into separate engagement letters with co-retaining parties; one engagement letter with multiple signatories is cleaner for both the firm and for the eventual sealed-report attribution.

Not compulsory under OSHA or NFPA 70E (the installed label, if generated under the applicable edition at the time of installation, remains the controlling label until the next survey cycle). However, on every arc-flash matter the firm investigates under R-02, we recalculate under the 2018 edition as part of the standing protocol. The recalculation routinely produces a different incident-energy value at the same working distance; on plaintiff-side matters this difference frequently supports the plaintiff’s theory, on defense-side matters it frequently demonstrates that the installed clothing system was adequate against the actual hazard.

PPE Category 2 corresponds to an arc rating of 8 cal/cm² and Category 4 to 40 cal/cm² under NFPA 70E §130.7 Table 130.7(C)(15)(c). The category-based selection method (Table 130.7) is permitted under 70E for tasks where incident-energy calculation has not been performed; the category-based method has not been removed from 70E. The arc-flash labels in the field continue to bear category designations because they are easier for workers to read at the cubicle than cal/cm² values. The firm reports both — the calculated incident energy at the documented working distance, and the corresponding PPE category — in every R-02 sealed report.

No. The firm’s licensure is current in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York; reciprocity in Maryland for one engineer. We do not testify in jurisdictions where our engineers are not currently licensed. Counsel requiring expert engineering testimony in other jurisdictions are typically referred to NAFE-credentialed firms in the relevant states; we maintain referral relationships with two such firms in the Midwest and one in the Mid-Atlantic.

The firm does not subpoena records; subpoena is a function of retained counsel. The firm will: (a) tell counsel what the relevant SCADA records are and at what granularity they would resolve the question; (b) cooperate with the utility’s power-quality engineer (in the Erie corridor, typically Karen Voltawicz at FirstEnergy/Penelec) to obtain records under a cooperative information request short of formal subpoena, where the utility is amenable; and (c) interpret the records once they are produced under whatever process counsel arranges. We have not had to use a subpoena to obtain utility SCADA records in any of the 78 R-04 matters the firm has closed since 2010.

No. The firm’s retention policy is ten years from the last filing on the matter, after which the retaining carrier’s consent to destruction is sought; if not received within ninety days of notice, evidence is destroyed by the firm under documented chain-of-custody procedures. The ten-year window reflects Pennsylvania’s statute of repose for construction-defect claims (42 Pa C.S. §5536) plus a margin. The retention policy is published at the Privacy page.

Yes. The firm has no structural policy against plaintiff or defense work; we work for both regularly. The constraint is the per-matter conflict check. A given plaintiff’s firm and a given defense firm cannot retain us on the same matter; that is a conflict, full stop. Beyond the per-matter check, we have no preference and no allegiance.

Generally no. The firm’s standing policy is that a sealed PE report is issued only on matters where the engineer of record was present at the scene under chain-of-custody documentation. The exception — opinion letters under R-08 — are not sealed and are explicitly identified as opinion rather than expert opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Where counsel needs an analysis of an existing report from another engineering firm, the firm provides a peer-review letter (also not sealed), which is treated as a critique rather than as expert opinion.

Lead times, opening of file to filing of sealed report, with current docket pressure: R-01 (fire origin) 21–35 days; R-02 (arc-flash) 14–28 days; R-04 (harmonic survey) 14–21 days after the 7–30 day measurement campaign; R-08 (subrogation opinion letter) 7–21 days. Lead times can compress where counsel needs the report by a specific deposition or trial date, with notice. Lead times can lengthen where the matter requires third-party laboratory work (Intertek metallurgical or UL garment testing, typically) — those labs run their own queues.

Yes, on a peer-review basis. The deliverable is a peer-review letter (not a sealed PE report) that examines the other engineer’s methodology, citations, and findings against the same standards we would apply on our own work. The firm does not produce a competing sealed report unless we have ourselves been to the scene under chain of custody — see Q-10. Peer-review letters frequently support the position that opposing counsel’s sealed report rests on a methodology error or a citation that does not say what counsel claims.

Aviation: no — aviation matters require investigator access we do not have. Rail: limited — we have closed three matters involving 480 V switchgear on locomotive maintenance facilities at Wabtec but do not work on rolling-stock traction electrical or signal/communications work. Marine: yes for shore-power, marina pedestal, dockside electrical, and small-vessel onboard electrical under ABYC E-11 (see CF-2024-198); not for large commercial vessels or for Great Lakes freighters, which require manufacturer-controlled disassembly procedures we cannot replicate in a 4,200 sq ft bay.

No. The firm does not work on contingency. Engagements are billed hourly against a retainer at the published rate ($295/hour PE, $185/hour EIT, with the retainer typically set at 50% of the projected fee at opening). Contingent-fee arrangements are inconsistent with NSPE Code §II.4 and with the professional independence of forensic engineering work; the firm declines all such retainer offers.