Loading
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Structural Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Building Code, Construction Defect, Civil Engineering
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Earthquake risk influences nearly every phase of a California construction project, from site selection and structural design to renovations, repairs, and post-earthquake evaluations. When seismic performance becomes an issue in litigation, expert opinions often help determine whether a project complied with applicable standards, whether any deficiencies existed, and whether those deficiencies contributed to the claimed damage.
A reliable expert opinion begins by identifying the technical and regulatory standards that governed the work. Depending on the issues in dispute, the analysis may involve the applicable building code, local amendments, geologic and geotechnical conditions, structural systems, construction documents, field modifications, inspection records, nonstructural components, and evidence of preexisting conditions.
The 2025 California Building Standards Code, which is Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, became effective on January 1, 2026. Subject to applicable permitting, transition, and enforcement rules, it generally governs projects within its effective code cycle. Its structural provisions incorporate or reference updated national standards, including ASCE 7-22. Earlier projects, however, are generally evaluated under the code edition in effect when the relevant work was designed, permitted, or constructed unless a later statute, contract, alteration, repair, or retrofit requirement makes a newer edition applicable.
Accordingly, the current code is not automatically the proper benchmark for evaluating older construction. A reliable expert should first identify the codes, approved plans, local ordinances, contracts, permits, and professional standards that governed the work at the relevant time.
Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of expert testimony and disclosure requirements in this article concerns California state-court civil litigation. Federal courts, arbitration proceedings, administrative matters, and other forums may apply different procedural and evidentiary rules.
California’s seismic activity creates engineering and legal issues that may arise long before or after an earthquake occurs. Projects may be affected by hazards such as:
Depending on the site conditions and building characteristics, these hazards may contribute to settlement, structural damage, nonstructural failures, or loss of building functionality.
California law requires consideration of earthquake-related site hazards, including liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides, for qualifying projects in designated seismic hazard areas. Site-specific geotechnical investigations, when required by law, help evaluate these hazards during project planning and design.
Seismic hazard zones identify areas where liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides may require additional investigation before development. Although these maps provide important regulatory guidance, they do not establish the cause of damage to a specific structure or determine whether a project’s design satisfied applicable engineering requirements.
Under Public Resources Code section 2697, local agencies generally must require a geotechnical report before approving qualifying projects located within mapped seismic hazard zones. The statute permits limited exceptions when the agency determines, based on studies of nearby sites with similar soil conditions, that no undue hazard exists.
Seismic issues commonly arise in disputes involving:
Technical experts may evaluate engineering decisions, structural damage, causation, and repair recommendations. Questions concerning the interpretation of insurance-policy language, however, generally require legal analysis rather than engineering expertise. Likewise, the mere occurrence of an earthquake does not establish that a contractor, design professional, owner, supplier, or manufacturer caused the alleged loss.
Seismic construction expert opinions in California require careful analysis of the governing building codes, site hazards, structural systems, construction records, and potential causes of damage. This article explains how experts evaluate seismic compliance and causation, distinguish earthquake damage from preexisting conditions, support reliable methodology, and satisfy California expert-witness disclosure requirements.
Earthquake damage
Earthquakes
Structural Analysis
Structural Damage
Structural Performance
Engineering Geology
Soil Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Construction Engineering
Materials Testing
Earthquake risk influences nearly every phase of a California construction project, from site selection and structural design to renovations, repairs, and post-earthquake evaluations. When seismic performance becomes an issue in litigation, expert opinions often help determine whether a project complied with applicable standards, whether any deficiencies existed, and whether those deficiencies contributed to the claimed damage.
A reliable expert opinion begins by identifying the technical and regulatory standards that governed the work. Depending on the issues in dispute, the analysis may involve the applicable building code, local amendments, geologic and geotechnical conditions, structural systems, construction documents, field modifications, inspection records, nonstructural components, and evidence of preexisting conditions.
The 2025 California Building Standards Code, which is Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, became effective on January 1, 2026. Subject to applicable permitting, transition, and enforcement rules, it generally governs projects within its effective code cycle. Its structural provisions incorporate or reference updated national standards, including ASCE 7-22. Earlier projects, however, are generally evaluated under the code edition in effect when the relevant work was designed, permitted, or constructed unless a later statute, contract, alteration, repair, or retrofit requirement makes a newer edition applicable.
Accordingly, the current code is not automatically the proper benchmark for evaluating older construction. A reliable expert should first identify the codes, approved plans, local ordinances, contracts, permits, and professional standards that governed the work at the relevant time.
Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of expert testimony and disclosure requirements in this article concerns California state-court civil litigation. Federal courts, arbitration proceedings, administrative matters, and other forums may apply different procedural and evidentiary rules.
California’s seismic activity creates engineering and legal issues that may arise long before or after an earthquake occurs. Projects may be affected by hazards such as:
Depending on the site conditions and building characteristics, these hazards may contribute to settlement, structural damage, nonstructural failures, or loss of building functionality.
California law requires consideration of earthquake-related site hazards, including liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides, for qualifying projects in designated seismic hazard areas. Site-specific geotechnical investigations, when required by law, help evaluate these hazards during project planning and design.
Seismic hazard zones identify areas where liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides may require additional investigation before development. Although these maps provide important regulatory guidance, they do not establish the cause of damage to a specific structure or determine whether a project’s design satisfied applicable engineering requirements.
Under Public Resources Code section 2697, local agencies generally must require a geotechnical report before approving qualifying projects located within mapped seismic hazard zones. The statute permits limited exceptions when the agency determines, based on studies of nearby sites with similar soil conditions, that no undue hazard exists.
Seismic issues commonly arise in disputes involving:
Technical experts may evaluate engineering decisions, structural damage, causation, and repair recommendations. Questions concerning the interpretation of insurance-policy language, however, generally require legal analysis rather than engineering expertise. Likewise, the mere occurrence of an earthquake does not establish that a contractor, design professional, owner, supplier, or manufacturer caused the alleged loss.
A reliable seismic opinion identifies the governing technical framework before reaching conclusions. Depending on the issues presented, relevant materials may include:
The timing of design, permitting, construction, repairs, and later alterations is often critical.
Using the 2025 California Building Code as the governing benchmark for work completed under an earlier code may produce a misleading opinion unless a statute, ordinance, contract, alteration, repair, retrofit, or another applicable legal requirement makes the newer code relevant. Although a later code edition may sometimes provide useful technical context, it should not be presented as the controlling legal standard unless the governing facts and applicable law support that conclusion.
Experts should also distinguish between minimum code requirements and contractual obligations. California building codes establish minimum standards intended to protect public health, safety, and general welfare. Compliance with those minimum requirements does not guarantee that a structure will remain undamaged during every earthquake.
A seismic investigation often begins with evaluating site-specific geologic and geotechnical conditions. The expert should determine whether investigations were required, whether they adequately addressed applicable hazards, and whether their recommendations were incorporated into the project’s design and construction.
The analysis should also compare actual field conditions with those assumed during design.
Some issues extend beyond the expertise of a structural engineer. Questions involving liquefaction, settlement, expansive soils, slope stability, or surface fault rupture may require evaluation by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Each expert should remain within the scope of the individual’s education, training, and professional experience.
Earthquake forces must be transferred through a continuous load path from the building’s structural components to the foundation and supporting ground.
Depending on the project, an expert may evaluate:
The analysis should determine whether the governing code permitted the selected structural system for the building’s occupancy, height, and seismic design conditions. It should also evaluate whether the structural calculations relied on appropriate site information, whether structural irregularities were properly addressed, and whether field modifications interrupted the intended load path.
A single deficient connection does not automatically establish that an entire building is unsafe. Instead, the expert should explain the engineering significance of the condition, its likely effect on structural performance, and whether the available evidence supports the proposed repair.
Earthquake-related losses are not limited to a building’s primary structural system. Damage to nonstructural components can create safety hazards, interrupt operations, increase repair costs, and affect occupancy even when the structural frame remains largely intact.
Depending on the project, an expert may evaluate:
Where required by the applicable code, these components should be properly anchored or braced to resist seismic forces. Their failure may result in falling hazards, water damage, equipment displacement, interruption of critical building systems, or extended business downtime.
Public school construction may also be subject to state oversight. Education Code section 17280 generally places qualifying school construction projects under the supervision of the California Department of General Services, subject to statutory exceptions. Before evaluating compliance, an expert should determine which governmental agency exercised jurisdiction over the project instead of assuming that ordinary local permitting procedures applied.
Even when a design satisfies the applicable building code, the completed construction may not perform as intended if it materially differs from the approved plans.
Examples include:
The expert should compare field observations with the approved construction documents and explain whether each deviation is technically significant. Depending on the circumstances, exploratory openings, nondestructive testing, scanning, material testing, or limited destructive testing may be appropriate.
The report should clearly document the investigation’s scope, testing methods, observations, engineering assumptions, and any limitations affecting the opinions.
Assume a commercial building permitted under an earlier edition of the California Building Code develops wall cracking after an earthquake.
The fact that the building would not satisfy every current detailing requirement does not, by itself, establish that the original design violated the code governing when the project was constructed.
Instead, the expert should first identify the applicable code edition and local amendments in effect when the permit was issued. The investigation should then compare the approved plans with existing field conditions, review inspection records, and determine whether later alterations affected the building’s structural load path. Maintenance records, repair history, and pre-earthquake photographs may also help determine whether some cracking existed before the seismic event.
The investigation may ultimately support multiple conclusions. The original design may have complied with the governing code, later alterations may have affected structural performance, and some observed damage may have resulted from unrelated deterioration rather than earthquake forces. A reliable expert report should explain each conclusion separately and identify the evidence supporting it.
Visible cracking after an earthquake does not automatically establish that the earthquake caused the damage.
Similar conditions may result from:
A reliable causation analysis considers pre-earthquake photographs, maintenance records, repair history, crack patterns, structural configuration, ground-motion information, and other available evidence. The expert should evaluate reasonable alternative explanations and disclose when incomplete records limit the certainty of the conclusions.
Causation and repair scope are related but distinct issues. Even if an earthquake contributed to a condition, that alone does not establish that every proposed repair is necessary or that all claimed damages resulted from the seismic event.
In California state-court litigation, expert testimony is governed in part by the California Evidence Code.
Evidence Code section 720 permits a witness to qualify as an expert when the witness possesses sufficient special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education concerning the subject of the proposed testimony.
Evidence Code section 801 limits expert opinion testimony to subjects sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the trier of fact and requires that the opinion be based on matter of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
Evidence Code section 802 permits examination into the reasons for the expert’s opinions and the matter upon which those opinions are based.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California explains the trial court’s gatekeeping role under these statutes. Courts may exclude opinions based on speculative reasoning, unsupported assumptions, or an improper factual foundation. At the same time, the court does not decide which competing expert opinion is more persuasive. Instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the expert employed reliable reasoning and methodology.
A well-supported report should:
Identifying a code provision alone does not establish negligence, causation, or legal liability. Those issues depend on the complete factual record and the applicable law.
In California state-court civil litigation, attorneys should review the expert-witness disclosure procedures beginning with Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 and the related statutory provisions governing expert demands, simultaneous exchange of expert information, expert declarations, production of discoverable reports and writings when required, expert depositions, and exclusion for noncompliance.
Subject to the statutory exceptions, Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300 generally requires exclusion of expert testimony following a proper objection by a party that timely and fully complied with the exchange requirements when another party unreasonably failed to:
Attorneys should also consider applicable scheduling orders, local rules, and case-specific deadlines, because procedural requirements may affect whether expert testimony is admitted.
A reliable seismic construction opinion requires more than identifying earthquake damage or citing a building-code provision. The expert should determine which standards governed the project, evaluate site conditions and structural performance, distinguish design issues from construction deviations, consider reasonable alternative causes, and explain how the available evidence supports each opinion.
Early preservation of project records and careful selection of qualified experts can help attorneys develop technically sound opinions, evaluate potential claims and defenses, and present more reliable evidence throughout construction litigation.
What does a seismic construction expert do?
A seismic construction expert evaluates whether a project's design, construction, or repairs appropriately addressed the earthquake-related requirements applicable to the work. Depending on the assignment, the expert may analyze site hazards, structural systems, nonstructural components, construction practices, causation, and the technical basis for proposed repairs.
Does earthquake damage automatically prove a building code violation?
No. Earthquake damage alone does not establish that a building violated the applicable code or that a design professional or contractor was negligent. A reliable analysis considers the governing code, the characteristics of the seismic event, the building's age and structural system, construction history, preexisting conditions, and whether an identified deficiency contributed to the claimed damage.
Should an expert always apply the current California Building Code?
No. Experts generally evaluate a project under the code edition that governed when the relevant work was designed, permitted, or constructed. A newer code may become relevant for later alterations, repairs, retrofits, contractual requirements, or other circumstances established by the applicable law or project documents.
Can one expert evaluate every seismic issue?
Not necessarily. Seismic disputes often involve multiple technical disciplines, including structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, architecture, materials testing, construction management, and cost estimating. The appropriate expert depends on the issues presented.
A reliable seismic opinion identifies the governing technical framework before reaching conclusions. Depending on the issues presented, relevant materials may include:
The timing of design, permitting, construction, repairs, and later alterations is often critical.
Using the 2025 California Building Code as the governing benchmark for work completed under an earlier code may produce a misleading opinion unless a statute, ordinance, contract, alteration, repair, retrofit, or another applicable legal requirement makes the newer code relevant. Although a later code edition may sometimes provide useful technical context, it should not be presented as the controlling legal standard unless the governing facts and applicable law support that conclusion.
Experts should also distinguish between minimum code requirements and contractual obligations. California building codes establish minimum standards intended to protect public health, safety, and general welfare. Compliance with those minimum requirements does not guarantee that a structure will remain undamaged during every earthquake.
A seismic investigation often begins with evaluating site-specific geologic and geotechnical conditions. The expert should determine whether investigations were required, whether they adequately addressed applicable hazards, and whether their recommendations were incorporated into the project’s design and construction.
The analysis should also compare actual field conditions with those assumed during design.
Some issues extend beyond the expertise of a structural engineer. Questions involving liquefaction, settlement, expansive soils, slope stability, or surface fault rupture may require evaluation by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Each expert should remain within the scope of the individual’s education, training, and professional experience.
Earthquake forces must be transferred through a continuous load path from the building’s structural components to the foundation and supporting ground.
Depending on the project, an expert may evaluate:
The analysis should determine whether the governing code permitted the selected structural system for the building’s occupancy, height, and seismic design conditions. It should also evaluate whether the structural calculations relied on appropriate site information, whether structural irregularities were properly addressed, and whether field modifications interrupted the intended load path.
A single deficient connection does not automatically establish that an entire building is unsafe. Instead, the expert should explain the engineering significance of the condition, its likely effect on structural performance, and whether the available evidence supports the proposed repair.
Earthquake-related losses are not limited to a building’s primary structural system. Damage to nonstructural components can create safety hazards, interrupt operations, increase repair costs, and affect occupancy even when the structural frame remains largely intact.
Depending on the project, an expert may evaluate:
Where required by the applicable code, these components should be properly anchored or braced to resist seismic forces. Their failure may result in falling hazards, water damage, equipment displacement, interruption of critical building systems, or extended business downtime.
Public school construction may also be subject to state oversight. Education Code section 17280 generally places qualifying school construction projects under the supervision of the California Department of General Services, subject to statutory exceptions. Before evaluating compliance, an expert should determine which governmental agency exercised jurisdiction over the project instead of assuming that ordinary local permitting procedures applied.
Even when a design satisfies the applicable building code, the completed construction may not perform as intended if it materially differs from the approved plans.
Examples include:
The expert should compare field observations with the approved construction documents and explain whether each deviation is technically significant. Depending on the circumstances, exploratory openings, nondestructive testing, scanning, material testing, or limited destructive testing may be appropriate.
The report should clearly document the investigation’s scope, testing methods, observations, engineering assumptions, and any limitations affecting the opinions.
Assume a commercial building permitted under an earlier edition of the California Building Code develops wall cracking after an earthquake.
The fact that the building would not satisfy every current detailing requirement does not, by itself, establish that the original design violated the code governing when the project was constructed.
Instead, the expert should first identify the applicable code edition and local amendments in effect when the permit was issued. The investigation should then compare the approved plans with existing field conditions, review inspection records, and determine whether later alterations affected the building’s structural load path. Maintenance records, repair history, and pre-earthquake photographs may also help determine whether some cracking existed before the seismic event.
The investigation may ultimately support multiple conclusions. The original design may have complied with the governing code, later alterations may have affected structural performance, and some observed damage may have resulted from unrelated deterioration rather than earthquake forces. A reliable expert report should explain each conclusion separately and identify the evidence supporting it.
Visible cracking after an earthquake does not automatically establish that the earthquake caused the damage.
Similar conditions may result from:
A reliable causation analysis considers pre-earthquake photographs, maintenance records, repair history, crack patterns, structural configuration, ground-motion information, and other available evidence. The expert should evaluate reasonable alternative explanations and disclose when incomplete records limit the certainty of the conclusions.
Causation and repair scope are related but distinct issues. Even if an earthquake contributed to a condition, that alone does not establish that every proposed repair is necessary or that all claimed damages resulted from the seismic event.
In California state-court litigation, expert testimony is governed in part by the California Evidence Code.
Evidence Code section 720 permits a witness to qualify as an expert when the witness possesses sufficient special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education concerning the subject of the proposed testimony.
Evidence Code section 801 limits expert opinion testimony to subjects sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the trier of fact and requires that the opinion be based on matter of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
Evidence Code section 802 permits examination into the reasons for the expert’s opinions and the matter upon which those opinions are based.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California explains the trial court’s gatekeeping role under these statutes. Courts may exclude opinions based on speculative reasoning, unsupported assumptions, or an improper factual foundation. At the same time, the court does not decide which competing expert opinion is more persuasive. Instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the expert employed reliable reasoning and methodology.
A well-supported report should:
Identifying a code provision alone does not establish negligence, causation, or legal liability. Those issues depend on the complete factual record and the applicable law.
In California state-court civil litigation, attorneys should review the expert-witness disclosure procedures beginning with Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 and the related statutory provisions governing expert demands, simultaneous exchange of expert information, expert declarations, production of discoverable reports and writings when required, expert depositions, and exclusion for noncompliance.
Subject to the statutory exceptions, Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300 generally requires exclusion of expert testimony following a proper objection by a party that timely and fully complied with the exchange requirements when another party unreasonably failed to:
Attorneys should also consider applicable scheduling orders, local rules, and case-specific deadlines, because procedural requirements may affect whether expert testimony is admitted.
A reliable seismic construction opinion requires more than identifying earthquake damage or citing a building-code provision. The expert should determine which standards governed the project, evaluate site conditions and structural performance, distinguish design issues from construction deviations, consider reasonable alternative causes, and explain how the available evidence supports each opinion.
Early preservation of project records and careful selection of qualified experts can help attorneys develop technically sound opinions, evaluate potential claims and defenses, and present more reliable evidence throughout construction litigation.
What does a seismic construction expert do?
A seismic construction expert evaluates whether a project's design, construction, or repairs appropriately addressed the earthquake-related requirements applicable to the work. Depending on the assignment, the expert may analyze site hazards, structural systems, nonstructural components, construction practices, causation, and the technical basis for proposed repairs.
Does earthquake damage automatically prove a building code violation?
No. Earthquake damage alone does not establish that a building violated the applicable code or that a design professional or contractor was negligent. A reliable analysis considers the governing code, the characteristics of the seismic event, the building's age and structural system, construction history, preexisting conditions, and whether an identified deficiency contributed to the claimed damage.
Should an expert always apply the current California Building Code?
No. Experts generally evaluate a project under the code edition that governed when the relevant work was designed, permitted, or constructed. A newer code may become relevant for later alterations, repairs, retrofits, contractual requirements, or other circumstances established by the applicable law or project documents.
Can one expert evaluate every seismic issue?
Not necessarily. Seismic disputes often involve multiple technical disciplines, including structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, architecture, materials testing, construction management, and cost estimating. The appropriate expert depends on the issues presented.
Earthquake damage
Earthquakes
Structural Analysis
Structural Damage
Structural Performance
Engineering Geology
Soil Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Construction Engineering
Materials Testing
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise