The Practice
An expert opinion that holds up on direct examination but collapses under cross-examination is worse than no opinion at all. MarcorSEN Engineering's practice is built around testimony that survives both, by grounding every conclusion in documented evidence, published codes, and methodology a jury can follow.
I
Engagement
Initial intake calls are scheduled within 48 hours of contact. A formal conflict review is completed before any scope-of-work discussion begins.
Engagement letters and retainer terms are clearly documented up front.
II
Investigation
Comprehensive on-site investigation with full photographic and instrumented documentation. The on-site record is what supports, or refutes, every later conclusion, so it gets the same attention as the report itself.
Coordination with opposing experts, public adjusters, contractors, and counsel happens at this stage, not after the report is delivered.
III
Report & Rebuttal
Forensic reports are written for juries, not engineers. Methodology, applicable codes, and causation findings are explained step-by-step so non-technical readers can follow the reasoning.
IV
Testimony
Deposition testimony delivered with consistent, defensible technical positions. Preparation sessions with retaining counsel ensure no surprises on the day.
Trial testimony built for clarity in front of a jury: difficult engineering concepts translated to accessible language without losing technical accuracy. Cross-examination preparation is delivered as part of every trial engagement.
Selected Cases
Hearing: San Francisco
MarcorSEN Engineering participated as an expert witness at a hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission regarding whether to install a proposed transmission line overhead or underground. The firm reviewed and generated data requests and responded to opposing counsel's; researched pricing, engineering specifications, markets, material supply and availability, project management, and geotechnical conditions; performed a statistical analysis on the price of copper for use in conductors; and prepared a report and testified at the three-day hearing.
Hearing: Graham County, Arizona
MarcorSEN Engineering was retained as a forensic engineer and expert witness investigating the structural integrity of a house to withstand high wind loads and water intrusion. The firm visited the site, performed calculations, conducted research, and prepared two reports outlining the study and conclusions, then testified at deposition and three times at trial regarding its opinions and conclusions.
Deposition: Maricopa County, Arizona
MarcorSEN Engineering was retained as an expert witness regarding the structural integrity of a masonry wall subject to moisture intrusion and vulnerable to collapse from wind in Scottsdale, Arizona. The firm visited the site with multiple attorneys and other experts, performed scanning of the wall and excavation of the foundation, performed calculations, conducted research, and reviewed the building code and commentary. The firm prepared one report outlining the study and conclusions and two rebuttal reports, and testified at deposition.
Deposition: Clark County, Nevada
Retained as a forensic engineer and expert witness regarding wind damage to a roof in Henderson, Nevada, MarcorSEN Engineering visited the site twice, obtained roof tile samples for both destructive and non-destructive testing, performed wind load and capacity calculations, conducted research, and studied wind funneling. The firm prepared two reports outlining the study and conclusions, and testified at deposition.
