Opinion ID: 3050316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: nfpa 921

Text: Whirlpool argues Giggy's investigative methods deviated from NFPA 921 and that deviation required the district court to exclude his testimony. According to Whirlpool, Giggy acknowledged NFPA 921 is a mandatory investigative procedure in a 2008 deposition in an unrelated case in which he said NFPA 921 is the standard of [sic] which, you know, you're held. J.A. 460. In his investigation of the Russells' home, Whirlpool contends Giggy did not take many of the actions NFPA 921 recommends, including considering and eliminating other potential causes of the fire, analyzing burn patterns to determine the area of origin, and investigating the way in -6- which the fire damaged the home's electrical circuits, a technique known as arc mapping. Therefore, the district court should have excluded Giggy's testimony for his failure to comply with a mandatory procedure. We disagree. Whirlpool does not accurately summarize our caselaw on this point. We have held NFPA 921 qualifies as a reliable method endorsed by a professional organization, Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 394 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (8th Cir. 2005), but we have not held NFPA 921 is the only reliable way to investigate a fire. Our NFPA 921 cases stand for the simple proposition an expert who purports to follow NFPA 921 must apply its contents reliably. Presley v. Lakewood Eng'g, 553 F.3d 638, 645 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming the district court's exclusion of expert testimony because the expert failed to follow . . . the standards he purported to follow); Fireman's Fund, 394 F.3d at 1060 (affirming the district court's exclusion of expert testimony because the expert did not apply the principles and methods of NFPA 921 reliably to the facts of the case). Accordingly, Giggy's testimony can only be excluded on NFPA 921 grounds if he purported to follow NFPA 921 but did not reliably apply it to the remains of the fire at the Russells' home. The record shows Giggy did not purport to apply NFPA 921. We take Giggy's 2008 deposition statement to mean only that NFPA 921 is a respected investigative method, not that it is a method an investigator must attempt to deploy in every case, including this one. Moreover, several aspects of Giggy's trial testimony indicate he did not purport to apply NFPA 921. Giggy bluntly and repeatedly stated NFPA is only a guide. J.A. 456-60. He also conceded he did not perform many of the steps NFPA 921 recommends a fire investigator take. Further, he testified NFPA 921 cannot be used when a fire leaves an insufficient burn pattern on the structure that sustained the fire. Id. at 502. A total burn fire does not leave sufficient burn patterns to use NFPA 921, id. at 506, and the fire at the Russells' home was a total burn. Id. at 470. In other words, Giggy did not employ NFPA 921 because, given the extent of the destruction, he believed he could not apply the guideline. In light -7- of this evidence, we are convinced Giggy did not attempt to employ NFPA 921 in his investigation, and therefore, his testimony may not be excluded for failure to reliably apply its contents.