On January 21, 2021, a fire destroyed Jacqueline Flynn’s home located at 7618 Craig Court in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff purchased a Thermacell Patio Shield on the day of the fire. Since the Patio Shield was the only energized device in use on the balcony at the time of the fire, the Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging negligence and strict products liability against the Defendants as a result of the Fire.
The Defendants, Thermacell Repellants, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC filed a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s fire cause and origin expert, Patrick B. Dugan, under Rule 702.
Fire Investigation Expert Witness
Patrick B. Dugan, CFI is a Certified Fire Investigator through the International Association of Arson Investigators and the National Board on Fire Service Professional Qualifications. He is also a Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator and Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator through the National Association of Fire Investigators. In addition, Dugan holds an HVAC Technician certification through the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Dugan retired as Deputy Chief and Platoon Commander of the Schenectady Fire Department in 2002 after a 33-year career. Prior to that, he served as deputy chief of training, fire captain, paramedic lieutenant, and fire lieutenant of the same department.
Discussion by the Court
Dugan offered several opinions regarding the cause and origin of the
fire. The site inspection was followed by a laboratory examination of fire debris in July 2021 and January 2024. While Dugan did not find remnants of the Patio Shield, he explained that its components are plastic, metal, and butane, which is highly flammable, and that there could be microscopic ceramic components. Dugan also factored weather conditions into his analysis and determined that an eight-mile-per-hour wind was present and sufficient to spread the fire. He also testified that he found no evidence of an electrical source starting the fire.
Dugan ruled out arson, noting that the Flynn’s owned the home for 18 years before the fire, there was no mortgage on the residence, they had good credit, and the home had never been on the market for sale. He further noted that all indications were that the fire was accidental and was caused by the Patio Shield. Consequently, he testified that a “heavy fire load” was present in proximity to the Patio Shield, consisting of wicker on the table, cushions on the chairs, and plastic coverings. Dugan did not identify any other ignition source aside from the Patio Shield, causing him to identify the product as the fire source.
Dugan testified that the burn patterns supported his opinion that the Patio Shield caused the fire. Moreover, he concluded that the fire started at the table area, and debris from the table started to burn and dropped down, catching the floor and chairs on fire. He noted that Chapter 19.4.4.3 of NFPA 921 provides that there are circumstances where the ignition source cannot be identified, but the ignition sequence can be logically inferred.
Analysis
The Defendants argued that Dugan did not find remnants of the Patio Shield or PIC Coil. However, this criticism ignored Dugan’s explanation that the components of the Patio Shield are combustible and were easily dispersed by the water suppression efforts. As for the PIC Coil, Flynn testified she did not ignite the PIC Coil, and the Defendants offered no competent evidence to the contrary.
The Defendants further argued that Dugan’s opinions regarding the cause of the fire should be excluded because he did not remove the outlet to examine it before ruling it out. However, Dugan testified that the outlet was destroyed in the fire.
The Defendants also sought to exclude Dugan’s statement that the “observations of the witnesses and responding firefighters were also consistent with a fire that began in the area of the product” on the balcony.
Lieutenant Lizbeth Desio, the first firefighter on the scene, testified that based upon her observations at the scene, there is no indication that the fire began anywhere other than the second-floor patio. Neither party identified the statement of any other witness who observed the location of the fire. LT Desio’s statement that fire was observed emitting from the rear, second-floor, balcony of the home, was consistent with Dugan’s opinion that the first responder concluded the fire began in the area of the product on the balcony. The Court denied the motion to exclude Dugan’s opinion that witnesses and first responders concur with his conclusion.
Because Dugan inspected the scene and provided a detailed description of the damage caused by the fire, the Court denied the Defendants’ request to exclude Dugan’s opinion that the fire caused extensive smoke, fire, and thermal damage to the interior and exterior of the residence.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s fire cause and origin expert, Patrick B. Dugan.
Key Takeaway:
Dugan’s investigation and analysis easily satisfied Daubert’s mandate that an expert employ a “sufficiently reliable” methodology. His opinions are based on sufficient facts and data; he did not unjustifiably extrapolate his research to reach an unfounded conclusion; he considered—and ruled out—contradictory data (other known ignition sources); his analysis was based on objective data including burn patterns, weather, timing, and available ignition sources, and Dugan is as careful as an expert would be in conducting professional work outside the context of paid litigation. Basically, the Defendants’ criticism of Dugan’s methodology and resulting opinions goes to the weight that the jury may give such testimony—not its admissibility.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Flynn V. Thermacell Repellents, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 6:23cv1890 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | July 28, 2025 |
Leave a Reply