When retaining a forensic engineering expert, attorneys and claims professionals should look beyond credentials alone. It is important to understand who will actually investigate the matter, how the engineer approaches evidence and causation, what information will be needed, how technical findings will be communicated and how the engineer handles limitations in the available evidence.
A forensic engineer may be asked to inspect physical evidence, evaluate competing explanations for a failure, analyze documents and testing, develop technical opinions, prepare a report and ultimately explain those findings during deposition or testimony.
That makes how an engineer approaches an investigation nearly as important as the engineer’s technical background.
Over the years, I’ve found that several questions can help counsel, claims professionals and other stakeholders better understand who they are bringing into a matter—and how that engineer is likely to approach the work.
1. Who Will Actually Evaluate My Case?
This is one of the first questions I would ask.
Find out whether the engineer you are speaking with will personally inspect the site or evidence, conduct or direct the analysis, develop the engineering opinions and remain involved as the matter progresses.
Engineering firms operate differently. Some matters involve multiple engineers or supporting technical staff, which can be entirely appropriate depending on the scope of the investigation. What matters is understanding who is responsible for the technical work and who will ultimately stand behind the conclusions.
Why Continuity Matters in a Forensic Engineering Investigation
A case may begin with a site inspection and eventually progress to additional testing, document review, expert reports, deposition and trial.
When the engineer responsible for the opinions has remained closely involved throughout that process, there can be greater continuity between what was observed, how the evidence was evaluated and how the conclusions are ultimately explained.
At Trillas Consulting Engineers, I work directly with clients and remain personally involved in the engineering matters I undertake.
2. Does the Engineer Understand the Difference Between an Investigation and an Opinion?
A forensic engineering investigation should not begin with a predetermined conclusion.
The engineer’s responsibility is to evaluate the available evidence, apply appropriate engineering principles and determine what that evidence supports.
That distinction matters.
An attorney or claims professional may come into a matter with a working theory based on the information available at the time. The engineer’s job is not simply to validate that theory. The job is to independently investigate the technical questions.
Depending on the matter, that may involve evaluating physical conditions, photographs, plans, specifications, maintenance records, testing, calculations, codes, standards, witness information and other relevant evidence.
The opinion should follow the investigation—not the other way around.
3. Can the Engineer Explain Complex Technical Issues Clearly?
Technical expertise is essential in forensic engineering. Communication is also part of the job.
An engineer may understand exactly why a structural component failed, why a crack developed or why a mechanical system behaved in a particular way. But those findings have limited value if they cannot be communicated clearly to people who do not have an engineering background.
When a forensic engineer is serving as an engineering expert witness or technical consultant, findings may need to be explained clearly to:
- Attorneys
- Claims professionals
- Insurance representatives
- Property owners
- Mediators
- Opposing experts and counsel
- Judges
- Jurors
The goal should not be to make engineering sound more complicated than it is.
A strong technical explanation should identify what was observed, explain the engineering principles that apply and show how the evidence leads to the resulting conclusion.
4. What Information Does the Engineer Need—and What Isn’t Necessary Yet?
It can be tempting to assume that more documentation, more testing and more investigation will always produce a better answer.
That isn’t necessarily the case.
One of the early responsibilities of a forensic engineer is determining what information is technically relevant to the engineering questions being investigated. That is different from determining what information may be important to the broader legal or claims strategy.
Depending on the matter, useful information might include photographs, construction documents, repair records, maintenance histories, product information, prior inspection reports, testing data or physical evidence.
But not every investigation requires every possible piece of information or every available test.
An experienced engineer should be able to explain what is needed initially, what additional information could become important and whether further testing or investigation is technically justified.
That can help keep the investigation focused on the evidence that matters.
5. Is the Engineer Comfortable Identifying the Limitations of the Evidence?
Not every forensic engineering question can be answered with absolute certainty.
Physical evidence may have been altered. Repairs may already have occurred. Components may no longer be available. Documentation may be incomplete. Multiple potential causes may need to be evaluated.
Those limitations are part of the investigation.
A credible engineering opinion should distinguish among:
- What the evidence supports.
- What the evidence does not support.
- What cannot be determined from the available information.
Clearly identifying uncertainty does not make an engineering opinion less rigorous. In many cases, defining the limitations of the available evidence is an important part of reaching a technically defensible conclusion.
Choosing the Right Forensic Engineering Expert
Retaining a forensic engineering expert is not only about credentials. It is also about understanding how the engineer investigates, evaluates evidence, communicates technical findings and remains involved as a matter progresses.
An effective engagement begins with a clear understanding of the technical question and an objective evaluation of the available evidence. The engineer’s role is to follow that evidence, identify what it supports—and what it does not—and communicate those findings in a way that can withstand scrutiny.
At Trillas Consulting Engineers, I work directly with attorneys, claims professionals and other stakeholders on forensic engineering matters from the initial technical evaluation through investigation, analysis and, when needed, deposition or testimony.
Have a matter that may require a forensic engineering perspective? Contact Trillas Consulting Engineers to discuss the technical issues involved and determine the appropriate next step.
Frequently Asked Questions About Retaining a Forensic Engineer
When should an attorney retain a forensic engineer?
Ideally, a forensic engineer should be consulted early enough to evaluate relevant physical evidence before conditions change, repairs occur or potentially important evidence is altered or lost. The appropriate timing depends on the technical questions involved and the circumstances of the matter.
What information should be provided to a forensic engineer?
The information needed depends on the investigation. Photographs, plans, specifications, repair and maintenance records, prior reports, testing data and physical evidence may all be relevant. An engineer can help determine what information is technically important and whether additional investigation or testing is warranted.
What does a forensic engineering expert do in litigation?
A forensic engineering expert may inspect physical conditions or evidence, analyze potential causes of a failure or damage, review technical documentation, perform engineering analysis, develop opinions and communicate findings through reports, deposition or testimony when required.