A witness who was a veteran firefighter, licensed master electrician and forensic expert was qualified to give expert testimony about a Pennsylvania shopping center fire, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday in refusing an insurer’s request for a new trial based on his testimony.

Mark Beal and his Greensburg, Pennsylvania-based business, Mark’s Maintenance and Repair, were charged with negligence in connection with a December 2012 fire at Natrona Heights Shopping Plaza that caused “costly and substantial” damage, according to Friday’s ruling by the 3rd U.S. circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Seneca Insurance Co., a/s/o Wild Blue Management LP v. Mark Beal, d/b/a Mark’s Maintenance and Repair.

As its insurer, New York-based Seneca, a unit of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp, paid owner Wild Blue’s losses resulting from the fire.

The issue at the ensuing trial was whether Mr. Beal had caused the fire by acting negligently in removing a neon sign, according to the ruling.

Three experts testified at the trial, including career firefighter Ralph Dolence. In March 2018, a jury in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh reached a verdict that while Mr. Beal was negligent when he removed the sign, his actions or omissions did not cause the fire.

Seneca contended Mr. Dolence’s expert witness testimony was
“speculative and lacked foundation” and on that basis sought a new trial. The District Court denied the insurer’s motion, and the three judge appeals court panel upheld the decision.

Mr. Dolence was qualified as an expert witness “because of his knowledge from years of professional experience, which included over 30 years as a fire investigator and 40 years as a licensed electrician,” the appeals court ruling said.

“At the time of his testimony, Dolence, a qualified forensic expert in 30 states, had served on arson task forces, investigated over 12,000 fires, and taught hundreds of classes on fire cause and origin investigations,” it said.

His testimony was based on his personal observation as well as his examination of several hundred photographs, videos and other documentation in connection with the fire.

Mr. Dolence “ultimately testified that the cause of the fire was ‘undetermined’ because the fire investigation was improper and other causes were not ruled out,” the ruling said.

“Although Dolence’s testimony may have contradicted the opinions of Seneca’s exports, as the District Court property noted, Seneca had the opportunity to attack the credibility of Dolence’s testimony through cross-examination and did so at trial.”

That the jury ruled Mr. Beal was negligent but did not hold that his negligence caused the fire, “does not demonstrate that Dolence misled the jury through his testimony,” the ruling said.

“Rather, this simply indicates that the jury, weighing the evidence presented by both parties, deliberated and concluded that Beal’s actions or omissions were not the factual cause of the fire,” the panel said, in denying Seneca’s motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Attorneys in the case could not be reached for comment.