Disaster Law Expert Witness & Litigation Support

Kendall is qualified to serve as an expert witness on FEMA appeals practice and process, California disaster law, insurance bad faith in wildfire and disaster contexts, smoke damage and habitability as constructive total loss under California law, California disaster statutes including SB 455 and AB 806 (which she authored), and the Stafford Act. Her involvement in Journey's End v. Foremost Insurance — a case of first impression establishing smoke damage as constructive total loss — provides direct precedent experience that few disaster law expert witnesses can match. Available for report preparation, deposition, and trial testimony in plaintiff and defense matters in California and federal proceedings. Engagements are handled personally by Kendall Jarvis, J.D.

Common Questions

How does expert witness retention work for attorneys?

Expert witness engagements follow a three-step process. First, a brief no-charge intake call to discuss the matter, confirm no conflicts, and determine whether the case is in scope — typically 15–20 minutes. Second, a paid preliminary review of case materials under retainer, producing an initial written opinion on whether and how expert testimony can support the matter. Third, a full engagement under written agreement with report preparation, deposition availability, and trial testimony as needed. Conflict screening runs before any substantive engagement. All engagements are handled personally by Kendall Jarvis, J.D. The For Attorneys page describes the full engagement structure and areas of expertise.

I am an attorney with a disaster-related case. How do I refer or consult?

The For Attorneys page describes the engagement structure for expert witness work, co-counsel arrangements, and referral relationships. Initial intake calls with attorneys are no-charge and brief. Substantive review of case materials occurs under engagement letter, with paid preliminary review as the appropriate first step for matters requiring expert evaluation before full engagement.

When does a paid preliminary review make sense rather than a full engagement?

The paid preliminary review is appropriate when there is a specific question or matter that requires expert evaluation but the full engagement scope is not yet clear. Typically a flat fee or short-hourly engagement (two to ten hours) producing an initial written opinion on viability, scope, and recommended next steps. Common cases: an attorney evaluating whether to take on a disaster-related matter and seeking expert witness input, an agency considering a FEMA appeal and wanting an initial viability assessment, or a corporation evaluating coverage gaps before a renewal conversation. The preliminary review either leads to a full engagement, ends the conversation cleanly, or produces a referral.