Restaurant fires represent a special challenge. This is especially significant with regard to specialized equipment such as suppression systems and specialized cooking equipment. Most of this equipment must be installed with specific reference to NFPA Codes and ASTM Codes (American Society for Testing Materials).

Even in the case of suspected arson investigations the investigator must be prepared to understand and review other potential fire causes unless the cause is absolutely specific. In most cases that is not the case. The presence of accelerant often makes the investigation easier. However, in more ambiguous cases a series of experts and understanding of codes is required.

The one area that NFPA 96 (Standard for the Removal of Grease and Smoke Laden Vapors) notes that is worth reviewing is the requirement that Deep Fryers must be equipped with a high limit switch separate from the regular switch that will cut off the system when the temperature of the oil reaches a temperature of 475° F (246° C) one inch below the surface. That should prevent "runaway" systems that seemingly continue to heat long after the danger zone has been surpassed.

As in product investigations any suspect equipment should be removed after documentation. We would urge investigators to consult with assigned legal counsel with regard to notification of other potential parties involved in the incident. That goes to the heart of the issue of spoliation of evidence. As we have noted in the past it is better to gather too much evidence as opposed to too little evidence.

In investigating deep fryer fires we recommend that the investigator taker a sample of the grease that was utilized for later analysis and review.

Fire investigations seemingly have become more complicated since the first days some thirty years ago when CORPORATE INVESTIGATIVE was founded. In the "old days" every situation had a clearly defined answer. Years of experience teach us that we often have more questions than answers after an incident. Perhaps that is maturity.

In other areas the Daubert Ruling, Spoliation of evidence, and fire modeling have put a new spin on fire investigations.

As we enter a new millenium we continue to grow. Presently we are licensed in New York, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

C.I.S., LTD. Grows with the support of our clients (Insurance Carriers, Attorneys, and commercial accounts). Our pledge remains the same-to give each client the attention and professional technical support that is required. We remain mindful of cost controls and weigh them with the assistance of our clients.

Security consulting is a growing area for the company. The growth of school violence has put us in the forefront of security consultation. Some thirty years ago the company got its start in the area of security consultation. We have brought together a group of educators, fire inspection personnel, and law enforcement personnel. We are also becoming more active in the area of hotel security and safety.

As a company we look to the 21st Century with high expectations for our continued success.

Some research by the NIST Fire research lab may give us some insight into the performance of High Strength concrete under fire conditions. NIST noted that normal strength concrete loses about one quarter of its strength at about 300 Degrees C. It loses about three quarters of its strength at 600 C. HSC appears to be subject to significant explosive spalling between 300 and 650 degrees C. This event could lead to premature collapse during a fire Some experiments indicate that the rate of explosive spalliing is related to rate of temperature rise, aggregate composition, thermal induced mechanical stresses, and moisture content of the concrete.

Safety Standards for Adjusters and Investigators

The death of a Syracuse, New York Fire Investigator is a grim reminder to insurance adjusters and fire investigators that the work environment of those professions is at best hazardous and at worst potentially deadly.

There are not too many occupations in which men and women venture into unsafe and perilous buildings seeking information on a demised building. The buildings are often in a near collapse state. Ice conditions during the winter only serve to enhance the problem. Thousands of pounds of ice build up may contribute to potential collapse. Ice also can be the "glue" that is actually holding the building together. The melting ice may actually be the demise of the glue and collapse results.

For the past ten years many of you have been in the audience during our training sessions in which we preach the gospel of scene safety. It is a theme that is given "lip service" by some employers. We do not believe that giving someone a good flashlight and a construction helmet meets minimum standards of safety.

The question has often arisen with regard to what are the standards that

OSHA would hold individuals to. ON the surface it appears that OSHA does not come into play with "mom and pop" adjusting firms or small fire investigation groups of one or two people. That does not alter the responsibility that the individuals have to themselves to recognize the hazards.

There is the ongoing question of insurance adjusters and fire investigators entering burned or collapsing buildings alone. In the Northeast snow and ice dominate the fire scene following extinguishment. The potential for a fall on the ice or through a floor is every investigators nightmare. That nightmare is enhanced when you are working solo in an isolated place. No one needs to describe the potential problem. Some companies give their personnel a cell phone for an emergency. That is hardly a comfort when you are dangling from an attic floor that has given way and the phone has fallen two floors below.

We couple the above hazards with the hazards of poor air quality, lead, asbestos, and a long litany of airborne hazards. We continue to caution insurance

adjusters to wear approved respirators when entering fire areas. Of significant importance is entering what can be defined as a "confined space" that may contain potentially deadly gas fumes. Fire fighters receive training in "confined space" operations. They know the hazards.

While following OSHA Standards may not be a requirement for specific companies we urge companies to be familiar with OSHA Standards for employees. Some years ago CORPORATE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES began to adopt standards for safety for our staff. Staff members are familiar with our safety manual. Masks are issued to all employees going into fire sites. The testing and fitting of the masks is the responsibility of the designated safety officer.

Working in tandem in dangerous situations also gives a degree of additional safety. It also gives an investigator a "second pair of eyes".

Our best advice is clearly review the site and take precautions to make your situation safe.

We are presently planning a small seminar for early Winter on computer modeling. The seminar will be a hands on program that will require each participant to bring their own lap top computer to the program. We will be using the latest CFAST computer-modeling program The two-day program will be held in the Syracuse area and be taught by experts in the field. If you are interested send a note to our staff member MARK ASWAD our Auburn, New York staff member at 800 245 8244. Participants will be required to bring their own lap top computer. The seminar is very limited in attendance.

Fall Seminar
a Success

School Fire:
Fire Alarm Not Operational

The fall seminar held in conjunction with Agway Energy products at their training facility in Syracuse, New York has had some rave reviews from participants. The program was a hands on seminar for a small group of law enforcement, Insurance, and Fire Investigators.

We are now planning another program for the fall.

Pictured is a heat detector that was part of a school alarm system. A fire failed to activate the system.

CAUSE: It was never connected.

Until 1993 the general test in Federal Courts for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence was whether such evidence was generally accepted by the scientific community. That test has been set forth in a case entitled Frye v. United States, 293 F.11013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) which ruled on the admissibility of certain polygraph evidence. In ruling such evidence was inadmissible, the court adopted the "general acceptance" test:

[w]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled the test set forth in Frye and established a new test for scientific evidence in a case entitled Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Specifically, the court changed the focus from "general acceptance" to whether the reasoning or methodology which underlie the expert's opinions is scientifically valid:

In order to qualify as scientific knowledge an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation ­ i.e., good grounds based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to scientific knowledge ­ establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability.

The Supreme Court in Daubert set forth a number of factors that judges should consider in screening scientific evidence.

(a) Has the technique or theory been tested?

(b) Has the theory been subjected to peer review?

(c) What is the known or potential rate of error
of scientific technique?

(d) What is the existence and maintenance of
standards controlling the techniques operations.

(e) Is there general acceptance within the
scientific community.

Based on an evaluation of these factors, the trial judge must then determine whether to permit expert testimony concerning the scientific evidence.

In March 1999 in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, S.Ct. (1999), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of its Daubert ruling to apply to all expert testimony. Specifically, the court held:

"We conclude that [Daubert's] general holdingapplies not only to testimony based on 'scientific' knowledge, but also to testimony based on 'technical' and 'other specialized' knowledge.

Thus, at least in the Federal Courts the Daubert rule has been expanded to virtually all types of expert testimony and vests with the trial judge considerable discretion in determining whether that testimony meets the requirements discussed above.

We thank attorney Fred Mindlin of Mound, Cotton, and Wollan for his input on the Daubert ruling.

Fire Alarm Detection
Systems and Subrogation

Insurance adjusters should address the question of Fire and Burglar alarm systems after a loss if the unit did not operate as set forth. We recognize the limitations of liability that alarm contracts in many states place on the installing company. However, the recent reports that some smoke detectors were defective (as were some sprinkler heads) raised some serious questions. The problem is that many of us write in our reports that the suspect unit was "approved" by some agency. Be aware of the fact that agencies such as U.L. "list" an item after testing that item. It is tested for its intended use. Perhaps a smoke detector was placed in an area that was not suitable for its use. Or worse the manufacturer has the unit "listed" following some testing but some years later changed the design ever so slightly causing a change in the unit. There is little retesting of units.

NFPA 72 NATIONAL FIRE ALARM CODE RECOMMENDS that smoke detectors be visually inspected semiannually. They also should be functionally tested yearly. Some homeowners do functional testing by introducing real smoke to the detector. We would urge all potential users of either artificial smoke canisters or real smoke to consult the manufacturer before doing this type of "functional test".

A problem often found in Fire Alarm Systems is the short cut that the installer takes in installing the system. As noted in the diagram depicted below there is a correct and an incorrect way to install the various detectors. Every part of an alarm system builds on an assumption that the parts are an integral part of the whole. Unfortunately some installers adopt the term "an integral part of the HOLE". A detector in which there is a two wire system with four connections they are there for a reason. Lacking installation of all connecting terminals may actually cause the "trouble" system to be inoperative. In a sense every detector "downstream" from the suspect detector is now inoperative with no indication of the malfunction.

We also call attention to the fact that the alarm signal in a fire alarm should have a specific decibel rating at certain distances. Obviously this is of particular importance in hotels and public buildings.

One area that this office is becoming increasingly concerned about is the lack of a defined and common fire alarm signal. In the past a specific "gong" was used in most schools and public buildings to alert the occupants to a fire or evacuation signal. Today signals vary from sirens, wailing alerts, buzzers etc. The only common signal is the visual flasher if you are in an area where it is seen.

We call your attention to the fact that NFPA generally calls for all the installation of listed equipment in accordance with the manufacturers and listing agency instructions. In its simplest form a contractor or installer can not retrofit specific equipment in a manner that he perceives as "better than the instructions".

One saving grace for the end user is that few commercial or residential structures can be built without ongoing and stringent inspections as the building is constructed.

The investigator should have a strong background in alarm systems, transmission of signals, and the operation of both Central Stations and Proprietary systems. Lacking a background in alarm systems the investigator should be prepared to work with other experts.

There is no substitute for an investigator knowing the trends of the law in the field of evidence spoliation. Our best advice to our investigative staff and to our clients is to not disturb a fire scene if there is any thought that you could be targeting an individual or a company as a cause of the fire.

As an example: You are investigating a fire for cause and ultimately subrogation for the fictional High Stakes Insurance Company. You identify the receptacle as the cause of the fire. The receptacle is manufactured by the fictional "bad news electric company". Before ripping the receptacle apart you must notify the product manufacturer. In the good old days you would advise the manufacturer of a product years after the incident by suing them. The evidence would long be altered and the building long destroyed.

The receptacle should be left in place and the opposing side should be notified.

In a Travelers case this past year nearly one million dollars was recovered as a result of a decision by CORPORATE INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LTD to notify the product manufacturer before moving the suspected copy machine unit for storage.

Every investigator should have an established and accepted protocol for potential product liability cases.

We have enclosed some information provided by Frederic Mindlin of Mound, Cotton and Wollan related to this subject. Mr. Mindlin has had many years of working with insurance carriers in the area of subrogation and incendiary fires. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law School and a partner in Mound, Cotton, and Wollan. Mound, Cotton, and Wollan is a leading property insurance and reinsurance legal firm in the U.S. and Europe.

Know Your Codes

Investigators dealing with natural gas or propane should be familiar with pressure testing techniques and the national gas code. Primary and secondary regulators and their requirements should be a working part of your vocabulary.

Pictured: The controls for an L.P. system involved in a fire.

WHAT IS IN A BURN PATTERN? Not much of anything if you review the literature. We recently ran about fifty test burns in a confined area using newspaper on carpet, furniture burning on carpets, and liquid accelerant. The burn patterns much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In short they are often a form of art and do not meet any of the standards that use the word "science".