Loading
Real Estate
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Fire Protection, Building Code, Fire Origin & Cause
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Arizona State
Court:
Debbie McCombs was found unresponsive inside her Arizona home after a fire broke out on February 27, 2018. The front door had a double-key deadbolt that could not be unlocked from inside without a key, and the home's smoke detectors had been disabled. Following her death, her children, Chelsea and Chase McCombs, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust. They alleged that the home's fire safety conditions had prevented their mother from escaping and contributed to her death.
The dispute centered on what McCombs was doing during the fire and whether the condition of the exits affected her ability to leave. Her children maintained that she was trying to escape when smoke exposure caused her to lose consciousness. The Trust argued that she had remained near the flames in an attempt to put out the fire, despite having other available exits. Although the trial court determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code, the jury returned a verdict for the Trust. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that judgment in August 2023, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review in January 2024.
A fire broke out at the home where Debbie McCombs lived, leaving her unresponsive in a hallway near the living room when firefighters arrived. Investigators later identified the northeast portion of the living room as the probable area where the fire began. A double-key deadbolt was installed on the front door, requiring a key to open it from either side, and the residence's smoke detectors were disabled. At the time, the property belonged to McCombs's mother, Joyce Miller, who died the following day from unrelated causes. The home subsequently became part of the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust.
Chelsea and Chase McCombs sued the Trust in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, asserting claims of negligence and negligence per se. They alleged that the disabled smoke detectors and the front-door locking arrangement interfered with their mother's ability to recognize the fire and reach safety. The Trust challenged that account, maintaining that McCombs likely started the fire accidentally with a cigarette and attempted to extinguish it instead of leaving the house. According to the defense, at least two other exits were accessible without double-key deadbolts. The lawsuit proceeded on conflicting accounts of the fire, McCombs's movements, and the conditions that may have affected her escape.
The parties disagreed over which fire safety codes applied to the property and whether the front-door deadbolt was prohibited. The plaintiffs argued that the International Fire Code required an exit door to be openable from inside without a key, while the Trust questioned whether that requirement applied to a home built years earlier. After reviewing the arguments, the trial judge determined that an applicable fire code governed the residence. The jury was instructed that an egress door must open from inside without a key or special knowledge or effort. The plaintiffs also requested judgment as a matter of law on their negligence per se claim, but the judge left the question of whether the violation caused McCombs's death for the jury to decide.
Testimony placed the probable origin of the fire in the northeast area of the living room, near a chair that the defense associated with McCombs's smoking. The plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that the fire might have started from either a cigarette or an electrical fault, although its exact cause could not be established. The Trust also presented evidence concerning burn marks on McCombs's body that it associated with metal springs from burned furniture. The defense argued that these marks were consistent with McCombs approaching the burning furniture while trying to fight the fire. Her children maintained that she was attempting to flee and had lost consciousness from smoke inhalation before reaching safety.
During trial, the court learned that the Trust had not disclosed nearly 500 photographs taken in the weeks following the fire. Some showed burned furniture and metal springs connected to the parties' competing explanations of McCombs's injuries. The judge ordered the defense to identify and produce previously undisclosed photographs containing unique information and separately examined whether its expert had relied on the images. The defense was restricted from using undisclosed photographs during the expert's testimony, while the plaintiffs were permitted to question him about the disclosure failure. The plaintiffs argued that the late disclosure had affected their ability to examine the physical evidence and prepare their explanation of McCombs's movements.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust. Following the verdict, Chelsea and Chase McCombs sought a new trial, relief from judgment, or additional sanctions related to the undisclosed photographs and other alleged trial errors. They also challenged portions of the defense's closing argument and several rulings concerning jury selection and evidence. The Superior Court denied their post-trial motions, leaving the verdict in place. The plaintiffs then appealed, asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to review the trial court's decisions.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgment in Case No. 1 CA-CV 22-0634. The appellate court agreed that the Trust had violated its disclosure obligations but concluded that the trial judge had taken sufficient corrective measures and that the plaintiffs had not established prejudice requiring another trial. It also rejected the argument that the fire-code violation required judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, explaining that they still needed to prove the violation caused their mother's death. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of that causation claim. It also upheld the challenged rulings concerning closing arguments, jury selection, and insurance evidence.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review in Case No. CV-23-0247-PR. The denial left the Court of Appeals' decision and the jury's defense verdict undisturbed. The state's highest court did not issue a separate ruling on the fire-code dispute or the evidence concerning McCombs's attempted escape. With the petition denied, the documented appellate proceedings ended without a finding that the front-door deadbolt caused her death.
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Case Name:
McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Living Trust
Debbie McCombs died after a 2018 Arizona house fire involving disabled smoke detectors and a front door secured by a double-key deadbolt.
The dispute focused on emergency egress, fire-code compliance, smoke warning, fire origin, and whether the locked front door contributed to her death.
The trial judge found that the deadbolt violated an applicable fire code, but causation remained for the jury to decide.
The jury returned a verdict for the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust, finding no basis to impose liability for McCombs’s death.
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed in 2023, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review in January 2024.
Fire Protection Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Residential Fires
Emergency Evacuations
Smoke Inhalation
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Fire Safety Science
Debbie McCombs was found unresponsive inside her Arizona home after a fire broke out on February 27, 2018. The front door had a double-key deadbolt that could not be unlocked from inside without a key, and the home's smoke detectors had been disabled. Following her death, her children, Chelsea and Chase McCombs, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust. They alleged that the home's fire safety conditions had prevented their mother from escaping and contributed to her death.
The dispute centered on what McCombs was doing during the fire and whether the condition of the exits affected her ability to leave. Her children maintained that she was trying to escape when smoke exposure caused her to lose consciousness. The Trust argued that she had remained near the flames in an attempt to put out the fire, despite having other available exits. Although the trial court determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code, the jury returned a verdict for the Trust. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that judgment in August 2023, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review in January 2024.
A fire broke out at the home where Debbie McCombs lived, leaving her unresponsive in a hallway near the living room when firefighters arrived. Investigators later identified the northeast portion of the living room as the probable area where the fire began. A double-key deadbolt was installed on the front door, requiring a key to open it from either side, and the residence's smoke detectors were disabled. At the time, the property belonged to McCombs's mother, Joyce Miller, who died the following day from unrelated causes. The home subsequently became part of the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust.
Chelsea and Chase McCombs sued the Trust in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, asserting claims of negligence and negligence per se. They alleged that the disabled smoke detectors and the front-door locking arrangement interfered with their mother's ability to recognize the fire and reach safety. The Trust challenged that account, maintaining that McCombs likely started the fire accidentally with a cigarette and attempted to extinguish it instead of leaving the house. According to the defense, at least two other exits were accessible without double-key deadbolts. The lawsuit proceeded on conflicting accounts of the fire, McCombs's movements, and the conditions that may have affected her escape.
The parties disagreed over which fire safety codes applied to the property and whether the front-door deadbolt was prohibited. The plaintiffs argued that the International Fire Code required an exit door to be openable from inside without a key, while the Trust questioned whether that requirement applied to a home built years earlier. After reviewing the arguments, the trial judge determined that an applicable fire code governed the residence. The jury was instructed that an egress door must open from inside without a key or special knowledge or effort. The plaintiffs also requested judgment as a matter of law on their negligence per se claim, but the judge left the question of whether the violation caused McCombs's death for the jury to decide.
Testimony placed the probable origin of the fire in the northeast area of the living room, near a chair that the defense associated with McCombs's smoking. The plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that the fire might have started from either a cigarette or an electrical fault, although its exact cause could not be established. The Trust also presented evidence concerning burn marks on McCombs's body that it associated with metal springs from burned furniture. The defense argued that these marks were consistent with McCombs approaching the burning furniture while trying to fight the fire. Her children maintained that she was attempting to flee and had lost consciousness from smoke inhalation before reaching safety.
During trial, the court learned that the Trust had not disclosed nearly 500 photographs taken in the weeks following the fire. Some showed burned furniture and metal springs connected to the parties' competing explanations of McCombs's injuries. The judge ordered the defense to identify and produce previously undisclosed photographs containing unique information and separately examined whether its expert had relied on the images. The defense was restricted from using undisclosed photographs during the expert's testimony, while the plaintiffs were permitted to question him about the disclosure failure. The plaintiffs argued that the late disclosure had affected their ability to examine the physical evidence and prepare their explanation of McCombs's movements.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust. Following the verdict, Chelsea and Chase McCombs sought a new trial, relief from judgment, or additional sanctions related to the undisclosed photographs and other alleged trial errors. They also challenged portions of the defense's closing argument and several rulings concerning jury selection and evidence. The Superior Court denied their post-trial motions, leaving the verdict in place. The plaintiffs then appealed, asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to review the trial court's decisions.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgment in Case No. 1 CA-CV 22-0634. The appellate court agreed that the Trust had violated its disclosure obligations but concluded that the trial judge had taken sufficient corrective measures and that the plaintiffs had not established prejudice requiring another trial. It also rejected the argument that the fire-code violation required judgment in the plaintiffs' favor, explaining that they still needed to prove the violation caused their mother's death. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of that causation claim. It also upheld the challenged rulings concerning closing arguments, jury selection, and insurance evidence.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review in Case No. CV-23-0247-PR. The denial left the Court of Appeals' decision and the jury's defense verdict undisturbed. The state's highest court did not issue a separate ruling on the fire-code dispute or the evidence concerning McCombs's attempted escape. With the petition denied, the documented appellate proceedings ended without a finding that the front-door deadbolt caused her death.
Fire Origin and Cause Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented an expert who examined where the fire likely began and the possible sources of ignition. He agreed that the probable origin was in the northeast portion of the living room but could not determine precisely how the fire started. His testimony acknowledged that either a cigarette or an electrical fault could have caused the fire.
The Trust relied partly on the possibility of a cigarette-related fire to support its account of the events. However, identifying the ignition source did not establish whether McCombs attempted to escape or remained near the flames. The expert testimony formed part of the evidence presented as the parties disputed McCombs's actions during the fire.
Fire Scene Evidence Expert Witness (Defense)
The Trust presented an expert whose testimony became part of the dispute over undisclosed fire scene photographs. The trial judge separately examined whether the photographs had formed the basis of the expert's opinions and prohibited the defense from using undisclosed images during his testimony.
The plaintiffs were permitted to question the expert about the disclosure failure. Some contested photographs depicted burned furniture and metal coils. The parties disputed whether coils from the furniture caused marks found on McCombs's body, with the Trust relying on the physical evidence to support its account of her movements during the fire.
Fire Protection Engineering Expert Witness
Fire protection engineering covers the performance of smoke detection systems, fire development, warning conditions, and the time occupants may have to leave a burning building. An engineering assessment of a residence with disabled smoke detectors can examine the alarm arrangement, potential warning delays, and conditions affecting evacuation.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witness
Building code compliance analysis examines whether exit doors, locking devices, and emergency escape routes meet applicable building and fire safety requirements. For residential properties, the assessment may involve the home's construction date, governing building and fire codes, interior door operation, and the accessibility of alternative exits during an emergency.
Fire Code Violations Do Not Automatically Establish Causation
The trial judge determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code because it required a key to open from inside. However, the plaintiffs still had to prove that the violation contributed to McCombs's death. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the defense verdict, finding that the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that the lock did not prevent her escape.
Alternative Emergency Exits Affected the Defense's Argument
The Trust argued that at least two other exits without double-key deadbolts were available during the fire. McCombs's children maintained that smoke exposure and the locked front door prevented her from escaping. The jury considered these competing accounts, including whether she attempted to leave through the front door, could have used another exit, or remained inside to fight the fire.
Disabled Smoke Detectors Raised Fire Warning Concerns
The home's smoke detectors were disabled when the fire occurred. The Trust presented evidence suggesting that McCombs or her brother may have disabled them because indoor smoking repeatedly triggered false alarms, although responsibility was never established. Her children argued that the missing warning reduced her opportunity to escape, but the jury did not find sufficient grounds to hold the Trust liable.
Fire Origin Evidence Left Evacuation Questions Unresolved
Investigators placed the probable fire origin in the northeast portion of the living room, but the exact cause remained uncertain. The defense suggested a cigarette, while the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that an electrical fault was also possible. The parties disputed whether burn marks associated with damaged furniture indicated that McCombs approached the flames or attempted to escape. The appellate court concluded that uncertainty about the fire's origin did not justify a new trial.
Undisclosed Fire Photographs Resulted in Trial Restrictions
The Trust failed to disclose nearly 500 photographs taken after the fire, including images of damaged furniture connected to disputed physical evidence. The trial judge ordered additional disclosures, restricted the defense expert's use of undisclosed images, and permitted questioning about the violation. Although the plaintiffs sought a new trial, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld these measures, finding no demonstrated prejudice sufficient to overturn the verdict.
The final stages of McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Living Trust centered on the plaintiffs' efforts to overturn the jury's verdict following disputes over fire-code compliance, physical evidence, and trial procedure. Although the trial judge had determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code, the jury was not persuaded that the lock caused Debbie McCombs's death. Chelsea and Chase McCombs challenged the judgment, arguing that undisclosed photographs and other trial errors had affected the proceedings. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected those challenges on August 15, 2023, finding that the trial court had adequately addressed the disclosure violation and that sufficient evidence supported the defense verdict. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on January 4, 2024, leaving the judgment in favor of the Trust intact.
What happened during the February 27, 2018 house fire?
Debbie McCombs died in a residential fire in Arizona. When firefighters arrived, they found her unresponsive in a hallway near the living room. Investigators later placed the probable origin of the fire in the northeast portion of that room. The home's smoke detectors had been disabled, and a double-key deadbolt was installed on the front door.
Why did Chelsea and Chase McCombs sue the Trust?
They alleged that the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust was liable for their mother's death because the residence had disabled smoke detectors and a front-door lock that interfered with emergency escape. Their claims included negligence and negligence per se. The Trust denied that those conditions caused her death.
Did the court find that the double-key deadbolt violated the fire code?
Yes. The trial judge determined that an applicable fire code governed the residence and instructed the jury that an egress door must open from inside without a key or special knowledge or effort. However, the jury still had to determine whether the violation caused McCombs's death.
Why did the undisclosed fire scene photographs become an issue?
The Trust had failed to disclose nearly 500 photographs taken after the fire. Some concerned burned furniture connected to the parties' competing explanations of McCombs's injuries. The trial court ordered additional disclosures and restricted the defense's use of the photographs. The appellate court later upheld those measures and declined to order a new trial.
What was the suspected cause of the fire that killed Debbie McCombs?
Fire Origin and Cause Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented an expert who examined where the fire likely began and the possible sources of ignition. He agreed that the probable origin was in the northeast portion of the living room but could not determine precisely how the fire started. His testimony acknowledged that either a cigarette or an electrical fault could have caused the fire.
The Trust relied partly on the possibility of a cigarette-related fire to support its account of the events. However, identifying the ignition source did not establish whether McCombs attempted to escape or remained near the flames. The expert testimony formed part of the evidence presented as the parties disputed McCombs's actions during the fire.
Fire Scene Evidence Expert Witness (Defense)
The Trust presented an expert whose testimony became part of the dispute over undisclosed fire scene photographs. The trial judge separately examined whether the photographs had formed the basis of the expert's opinions and prohibited the defense from using undisclosed images during his testimony.
The plaintiffs were permitted to question the expert about the disclosure failure. Some contested photographs depicted burned furniture and metal coils. The parties disputed whether coils from the furniture caused marks found on McCombs's body, with the Trust relying on the physical evidence to support its account of her movements during the fire.
Fire Protection Engineering Expert Witness
Fire protection engineering covers the performance of smoke detection systems, fire development, warning conditions, and the time occupants may have to leave a burning building. An engineering assessment of a residence with disabled smoke detectors can examine the alarm arrangement, potential warning delays, and conditions affecting evacuation.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witness
Building code compliance analysis examines whether exit doors, locking devices, and emergency escape routes meet applicable building and fire safety requirements. For residential properties, the assessment may involve the home's construction date, governing building and fire codes, interior door operation, and the accessibility of alternative exits during an emergency.
Fire Code Violations Do Not Automatically Establish Causation
The trial judge determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code because it required a key to open from inside. However, the plaintiffs still had to prove that the violation contributed to McCombs's death. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the defense verdict, finding that the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that the lock did not prevent her escape.
Alternative Emergency Exits Affected the Defense's Argument
The Trust argued that at least two other exits without double-key deadbolts were available during the fire. McCombs's children maintained that smoke exposure and the locked front door prevented her from escaping. The jury considered these competing accounts, including whether she attempted to leave through the front door, could have used another exit, or remained inside to fight the fire.
Disabled Smoke Detectors Raised Fire Warning Concerns
The home's smoke detectors were disabled when the fire occurred. The Trust presented evidence suggesting that McCombs or her brother may have disabled them because indoor smoking repeatedly triggered false alarms, although responsibility was never established. Her children argued that the missing warning reduced her opportunity to escape, but the jury did not find sufficient grounds to hold the Trust liable.
Fire Origin Evidence Left Evacuation Questions Unresolved
Investigators placed the probable fire origin in the northeast portion of the living room, but the exact cause remained uncertain. The defense suggested a cigarette, while the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that an electrical fault was also possible. The parties disputed whether burn marks associated with damaged furniture indicated that McCombs approached the flames or attempted to escape. The appellate court concluded that uncertainty about the fire's origin did not justify a new trial.
Undisclosed Fire Photographs Resulted in Trial Restrictions
The Trust failed to disclose nearly 500 photographs taken after the fire, including images of damaged furniture connected to disputed physical evidence. The trial judge ordered additional disclosures, restricted the defense expert's use of undisclosed images, and permitted questioning about the violation. Although the plaintiffs sought a new trial, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld these measures, finding no demonstrated prejudice sufficient to overturn the verdict.
The final stages of McCombs v. Joyce C. Miller Living Trust centered on the plaintiffs' efforts to overturn the jury's verdict following disputes over fire-code compliance, physical evidence, and trial procedure. Although the trial judge had determined that the front-door deadbolt violated an applicable fire code, the jury was not persuaded that the lock caused Debbie McCombs's death. Chelsea and Chase McCombs challenged the judgment, arguing that undisclosed photographs and other trial errors had affected the proceedings. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected those challenges on August 15, 2023, finding that the trial court had adequately addressed the disclosure violation and that sufficient evidence supported the defense verdict. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on January 4, 2024, leaving the judgment in favor of the Trust intact.
What happened during the February 27, 2018 house fire?
Debbie McCombs died in a residential fire in Arizona. When firefighters arrived, they found her unresponsive in a hallway near the living room. Investigators later placed the probable origin of the fire in the northeast portion of that room. The home's smoke detectors had been disabled, and a double-key deadbolt was installed on the front door.
Why did Chelsea and Chase McCombs sue the Trust?
They alleged that the Joyce C. Miller Living Trust was liable for their mother's death because the residence had disabled smoke detectors and a front-door lock that interfered with emergency escape. Their claims included negligence and negligence per se. The Trust denied that those conditions caused her death.
Did the court find that the double-key deadbolt violated the fire code?
Yes. The trial judge determined that an applicable fire code governed the residence and instructed the jury that an egress door must open from inside without a key or special knowledge or effort. However, the jury still had to determine whether the violation caused McCombs's death.
Why did the undisclosed fire scene photographs become an issue?
The Trust had failed to disclose nearly 500 photographs taken after the fire. Some concerned burned furniture connected to the parties' competing explanations of McCombs's injuries. The trial court ordered additional disclosures and restricted the defense's use of the photographs. The appellate court later upheld those measures and declined to order a new trial.
What was the suspected cause of the fire that killed Debbie McCombs?
The exact cause of the fire was never established. Investigators identified the northeast portion of the living room as its probable point of origin. The Trust suggested that a lit cigarette may have started the fire, while the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that an electrical fault was also a possible cause.
Fire Protection Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Residential Fires
Emergency Evacuations
Smoke Inhalation
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Fire Safety Science
Real Estate
Real Estate Appraisal, +3
Real Estate
Mold, +4
Real Estate
The exact cause of the fire was never established. Investigators identified the northeast portion of the living room as its probable point of origin. The Trust suggested that a lit cigarette may have started the fire, while the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that an electrical fault was also a possible cause.