The goal here is to demystify how these issues may play out in the real world—through the eyes of project owners, insurers, plaintiffs’ counsel, defense counsel, and courts.
The scenario below is intentionally simplified, but it reflects patterns increasingly seen in claims, litigation arguments, and post-disaster reviews.
A hypothetical scenario
A fast-growing suburban community in the western US experienced a major wildfire. The development includes single-family homes, a mixed-use retail and residential center, a medical clinic, and supporting infrastructure. Most of the buildings were designed and constructed within the last 10 to 15 years and were code compliant at the time of design.
The wildfire is severe but not unprecedented. Fire behavior is intensified by drought, heat, and wind, conditions that have become increasingly common in the region.
What survives and what doesn’t
After the fire, many buildings remain standing. Structural systems generally perform as intended, and life-safety objectives under the building codes are largely met. However, electrical power is unavailable for weeks. Water pressure is unreliable. Cell and internet service are intermittent. Roads are damaged or restricted. The medical clinic cannot operate. Residents cannot return—not because homes collapsed, but because basic services are unavailable.
From a technical standpoint, many buildings “survived.” From a functional standpoint, the community does not.
The recovery delay
Homeowners and businesses expect rapid recovery. Instead, they encounter extensive documentation requirements, slow processing of disaster assistance, and delayed funding. Rebuilding costs escalate quickly due to inflation factors, labor shortages, and extended displacements. These delays are not caused by a single failure. They result from layered oversight requirements, administrative cautions, and post-disaster review processes designed to protect public funds. Over time, the emotional narrative shifts—from “this was a terrible disaster” to “someone should have planned better.”
Where design professionals enter the conversation
Attention turns to decisions made before the fire. Owners and operators begin asking why facilities could not reopen sooner, why there was no backup power, and why access routes were limited? These questions are framed around anticipation and preparedness. This is where professional liability risk can arise, not from code violations, but from assumptions.
Assumptions under scrutiny
Designs for most buildings and facilities are developed on the reasonable premise that essential external services (e.g., power, water, and access) will be available under normal operating conditions. These baseline conditions are typically outside the design professional’s control and are not treated as design variables unless the project scope specifically requires it.
After a major disaster, however, those baseline conditions may be absent for extended periods. In hindsight, questions arise about whether designers could have foreseen prolonged service disruptions enough to warrant discussion, documentation, or qualification during the design process.
The issue becomes whether reliance on external systems (common to projects) was reasonable in light of known hazards, and whether that reliance was clearly communicated as part of the project’s underlying assumptions.
The role of insurance
Property insurers generally pay covered claims for wildfire damages. What they often do not pay for are:
- upgrades in the rebuild beyond what existed before the loss;
- resilience improvements not required by code; or
- measures intended solely to reduce future risks.
Clients may be told they need to rebuild more resiliently, but that insurance will not fund those improvements. This gap creates pressure, which can flow back to design teams even when resilience features were not part of the original scope.
How lawyers view the dispute
Plaintiffs’ lawyers may argue that service disruptions were foreseeable and that silence about known risks was unreasonable. Defense counsel will emphasize code compliance, scope limitations, and the fact that designers do not control funding, utilities, or insurance coverage. And courts typically evaluate what risks were foreseeable at the time of design, what assumptions were reasonable, and what was documented.
Why disaster policy signals matter
Current discussions about disaster policies and the role of FEMA emphasize faster recovery, functional resilience, and greater responsibility at state and local levels. While these discussions do not create new design requirements or alter building codes, they shape how risks are understood and allocated across the built environment.
Over time, these policy signals influence the expectations of public owners, regulators, insurers, and ultimately courts. When government agencies and national bodies emphasize resilience, continuity of services, and reduced reliance on federal intervention, those priorities can inform how decision makers evaluate what was foreseeable and reasonable at the time of design.
In litigation, such signals may be cited not as binding standards, but as evidence of the broader context in which professional judgment was exercised—particularly when disputes center on assumptions, risk communications, and preparedness steps rather than technical code compliance.
What this means for design firms
This scenario is not a warning that design firms are doing something wrong. Rather, it highlights that expectations are evolving, risks may increasingly lie in assumptions rather than errors, and communication and documentation procedures matter more than ever.
Design professionals cannot force resilience measures, especially in instances when they require additional funding and the client declines. But they can help clients understand tradeoffs and document decisions in a changing risk environment.
Closing thought
Disasters today test more than buildings. They test systems, assumptions, and decisions made long before the event. Understanding how these tests unfold helps design professionals manage risks without overstepping their role.