What this practice does not do

Stating limits builds trust. The practice is structured around disaster law specifically and routes other matters to the right resources.

Every California county that has drawn on FEMA Public Assistance has heard about the audit risk. Few have actually been through one. This is what auditors actually examine, and what the documentation discipline looks like for counties that come through audits cleanly.

The audit is procedural, not adversarial

FEMA audits and OIG reviews are document-centric. The auditor is not investigating bad faith; they are checking whether costs claimed under the Stafford Act and 2 CFR 200 procurement rules are documented to the standard the regulations require. The auditor’s default posture is that costs without contemporaneous documentation are unallowable. The county’s burden is to produce the documentation — not to argue around its absence.

Five categories auditors actually examine

1. Procurement competition. Did the county follow 2 CFR 200.319–320 procurement rules during the emergency? Sole-source justifications, micro-purchase thresholds, and emergency procurement documentation are scrutinized. The exception for emergency procurement narrows quickly once initial response stabilizes.

2. Force account labor. Time records, position descriptions, regular vs. overtime separation, and leave eligibility under the Family and Medical Leave Act intersect with PA reimbursement. Counties whose time records are not contemporaneous to the work face systematic disallowance.

3. Equipment and rental rates. The FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates governs reimbursement. Equipment used outside scope, rented at non-FEMA rates, or undocumented in usage logs is routinely disallowed.

4. Damage description and scope of work. The Project Worksheet (PW) is the operational document. Scope creep — work performed beyond the PW’s described scope — is the single most common disallowance trigger. PW amendments before work is performed are protective; after the fact they are difficult.

5. Insurance interaction. The duplication of benefits prohibition under Section 312 of the Stafford Act requires careful documentation of insurance proceeds, deductibles, and coverage gaps. Insurance offsets are recalculated by FEMA on appeal; counties that have not maintained insurance documentation face problems.

The documentation discipline that prevents disallowance

Counties that come through audits cleanly tend to share the same operating posture: contemporaneous documentation captured during the response (not reconstructed afterward); a single Public Assistance lead with authority to gather records across departments; an attorney involved in PW scope decisions before they are signed; and procurement decisions papered with sole-source justifications, micro-purchase determinations, or emergency procurement memoranda within the response window.

None of this is exotic. It is the discipline FEMA expects, articulated in the rules. The counties that struggle in audit are not the counties that responded poorly — they are the counties whose documentation was assembled after the fact. The first 72 hours determine what the documentation can look like 18 months later.

When to involve outside counsel

Most audits resolve without outside counsel. Outside counsel becomes useful when partial disallowance has been proposed and reconsideration or appeal is on the table; when the audit identifies systemic documentation gaps that affect multiple PWs; when the dollar amount is significant enough that a formal appeal makes economic sense; or when the agency’s in-house counsel does not regularly handle FEMA matters.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for guidance on specific FEMA matters.

Disallowance under FEMA Public Assistance rarely originates in the response work itself. It originates in procurement decisions made during the emergency window — and the documentation around those decisions. Five recurring patterns we see across counties, with the documentation disciplines that prevent them.

1. Emergency procurement extended past the emergency

2 CFR 200.320(c) permits non-competitive procurement during a public emergency. The exception narrows quickly. Counties that continue using emergency procurement past the initial response window — once normal competition becomes feasible — face systematic disallowance. The defensive posture: documented determination, week by week, that emergency conditions still preclude competition. Once competition becomes feasible, return to standard procurement immediately and document the transition.

2. Sole-source without contemporaneous justification

Sole-source justifications written six months after the contract was issued have limited evidentiary value. The justification needs to exist when the decision is made — even if it is a brief written determination signed by an authorized official. A two-paragraph memo capturing the rationale, the alternatives considered, and the cost reasonableness analysis is sufficient. The absence of any such memo is not.

3. Cost reasonableness not analyzed

Even where competition was infeasible, cost reasonableness must be analyzed. Industry comparables, historical pricing, or independent cost estimates establish the reasonableness baseline. The default failure mode is to procure at quoted rates without any reasonableness analysis. Auditors test cost reasonableness against alternative sources; counties without their own analysis on file are arguing from a weaker position.

4. Contract scope drift unmediated by amendment

Contracts issued under emergency conditions are typically narrow. Work expands during the response. The pattern that produces disallowance: work performed outside the original contract scope, billed under the original contract, without a contemporaneous amendment. The corrective discipline is to either amend the contract before the expanded work is performed or issue a new procurement for the expanded scope.

5. Federal flow-down provisions absent

FEMA Public Assistance funds carry federal flow-down requirements: civil rights, Davis-Bacon (where applicable), suspension and debarment, and others. Contracts that omit the required flow-down provisions are technically deficient even when the underlying work was performed compliantly. Standard contract templates should incorporate the FEMA-required clauses; emergency contract templates often skip them.

The unifying discipline

All five gaps share one pattern: the procurement decisions are made under time pressure during the emergency, and the documentation is reconstructed afterward when the audit arrives. The fix is contemporaneous documentation discipline — even abbreviated written determinations made during the response are vastly more defensible than thorough memoranda assembled later. Counties that build the discipline into the response itself rarely have audit problems.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for guidance on specific procurement matters.

Coverage limits set three to five years ago no longer reflect current rebuilding costs in California. Material costs, labor costs, and code-upgrade requirements have moved substantially since most policies were last calibrated. The valuation gap typically runs 25 to 40 percent of replacement value — and it shows up at the worst possible time, after a loss event, when the policyholder is in no position to negotiate.

Why the gap accumulates

Insurance valuation lags reality. Three drivers compound: (1) construction cost inflation in California has been substantial since 2020, with materials and labor both moving sharply; (2) code upgrades — wildfire-resistant materials, defensible space, electrical system replacements — are now required on rebuild but were not when the policy was placed; (3) demolition and debris removal costs have risen alongside construction costs but are often underwritten as a fixed sublimit rather than scaling with the structure.

The compound effect: a policy that was adequately calibrated in 2020 is now systematically underweighted relative to actual rebuilding cost. The gap is structural, not the result of any one party’s error.

Renewal is the leverage point

The leverage to close the gap exists at renewal. Once the renewal is complete, the limits are set for another year. The discipline is to run the gap analysis before the renewal conversation begins — not during it, when there is no time to actually verify replacement cost.

A pre-renewal gap analysis examines: actual replacement cost (current materials, current labor, current code requirements), structure of additional living expense / business interruption coverage, debris removal sublimits, code upgrade coverage, and the policy’s valuation methodology (replacement cost vs. actual cash value vs. functional replacement). The output is a written gap analysis that can be discussed with the broker before the renewal closes.

What to discuss with the broker

Replacement cost methodology. Is the carrier using a current cost calculator, or a value carried forward from prior years with inflation adjustment? The two methods produce different answers; the calculator is more defensible.

Code upgrade rider. California construction codes are stricter than they were five years ago. Code upgrade coverage as a separate line item, or as an extension of replacement cost, materially affects the rebuild outcome.

Demolition and debris removal sublimit. Often capped at a percentage of structure coverage that was reasonable five years ago and is no longer.

Business interruption period. Construction timelines have lengthened. A 12-month business interruption coverage period assumed pre-2020 rebuild speeds; post-2025 rebuilds in California regularly run 18 to 30 months. Period-of-restoration extension may be available.

When this conversation is most leveraged

For corporate policyholders with significant California exposure, an annual pre-renewal gap analysis is a routine cost. For nonprofits and smaller corporations, every two to three years is more realistic. The cost of the analysis is invariably a fraction of the recovery delta if a loss event occurs against an underweighted policy.

For organizations that have already had a loss event and are working a claim against an underweighted policy, the conversation shifts from gap analysis to coverage interpretation and bad-faith analysis — a different engagement, with different economics.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice. Coverage analysis depends on specific policy language, jurisdiction, and facts.

In October 2017 the Tubbs Fire destroyed most of Journey’s End Mobilehome Park in Santa Rosa. One hundred and sixty-one units. Forty-four units were physically standing after the fire; the rest were lost outright. Both FEMA and the residents’ insurance carriers initially denied coverage on the standing units, taking the position that homes which had not been physically destroyed had not suffered a covered loss.

The position was not absurd on its face. Most policy language defines “physical damage” in terms that read most naturally as physical destruction. The standing units had not been destroyed in that narrow sense. But the surrounding park infrastructure — utilities, roads, common spaces, sewer — was condemned. The standing homes were uninhabitable not because they were physically damaged but because the park around them no longer functioned. The residents could not return.

The legal challenge

Representing the Journey’s End residents, we challenged the narrow interpretation. The argument: the policy’s coverage language, read in the context of a covered peril (wildfire) that rendered the insured property permanently unusable, extends to permanent uninhabitability — not just to physical destruction. The position drew on existing California insurance jurisprudence on direct physical loss but pushed the principle into a context (mobilehome park infrastructure rendering standing structures uninhabitable) where it had not been squarely tested.

The ruling

U.S. District Judge William Alsup agreed with the residents’ position: permanent lack of habitability constitutes a covered loss under the policy language at issue. The matter resolved by settlement after the ruling. The precedent has since been cited in subsequent insurance coverage disputes involving California wildfire survivors whose homes were standing but uninhabitable.

Why it matters now

The Journey’s End ruling is most relevant in three categories of current matter:

Wildfire-affected structures with infrastructure damage. When a structure survives but the surrounding infrastructure (water, sewer, road access, evacuation routing) does not, the Journey’s End reasoning supports coverage even where physical structural damage is limited.

Smoke and toxin contamination. Structures that are physically standing but contaminated to a degree that precludes habitation present analogous coverage questions. The reasoning is portable.

Multi-unit and shared-infrastructure properties. Where the insured asset depends on shared infrastructure that was destroyed, the principle that uninhabitability is a covered loss applies regardless of the insured unit’s physical condition.

The disclaimers

Coverage analysis depends on specific policy language, jurisdiction, and facts. The Journey’s End ruling does not automatically apply to other coverage disputes; it provides reasoning that is potentially persuasive in cases where the policy language and facts align. Counsel and a careful policy review are required before relying on the precedent in any specific matter.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice. Prior results, including the Journey’s End matter, do not predict future outcomes in any matter.

Nonprofit boards focus disaster preparedness on operational continuity — backup facilities, communication plans, IT redundancy. The bigger exposure is usually documentation discipline: grant compliance during disruption, tenant or beneficiary obligations during interrupted services, and post-event reporting integrity. Funders evaluate post-disruption performance against pre-disruption documentation. The discipline that determines the post-event audit posture is established before the event.

Three exposure categories nonprofits routinely underweight

Grant compliance during interrupted operations. Most operating grants and contracts contain reporting cadences, performance metrics, and use-of-funds provisions that do not pause during a declared event. A grant requiring quarterly impact reporting still requires quarterly reporting if the facility is inaccessible. The plan to maintain compliance during disruption is part of the documentation that funders evaluate.

Tenant and beneficiary obligations. Nonprofits providing housing, services, or programs to vulnerable populations carry obligations that are often misunderstood as moral commitments rather than legal ones. They are often legal — the funder’s requirements, contractual obligations to tenants, ADA obligations under the Stafford Act, and California-specific eviction protections all apply during disruption. Failure to meet these obligations creates legal exposure beyond the operational disruption itself.

Documentation integrity. Post-event funder reviews compare claimed performance against documentation. Nonprofits whose performance documentation was reconstructed after the disruption (rather than maintained during it) face systematic challenges. This is structurally similar to the FEMA documentation-discipline problem — and the fix is the same: contemporaneous documentation, even abbreviated, beats thorough reconstruction.

What board-defensible preparedness looks like

A nonprofit preparedness framework is defensible to its board when it includes: (1) a written continuity plan that explicitly addresses grant compliance and reporting cadences during disruption; (2) a documented chain of authority for activating the plan and making decisions under disruption; (3) an inventory of grant and contractual obligations that survive disruption, with a maintenance plan for each; (4) a documentation discipline (who captures what, when, how) that begins within 24 hours of an event; and (5) explicit identification of the legal exposures that the plan is designed to address.

The plan does not need to be elaborate. A 15-page document that addresses these five elements specifically is more defensible than a 200-page generic continuity plan. Boards reviewing the plan want to understand the exposure, the response, and the documentation discipline — not the operational logistics.

Where nonprofits can leverage existing disaster legal aid networks

For individual disaster survivors served by nonprofits, California’s Disaster Legal Assistance Collaborative (DLAC) and Legal Aid networks provide direct legal services. Nonprofits should know the referral path and have it documented. For the nonprofit’s own preparedness, advisory work, and grant compliance, the engagement is private rather than legal-aid-based.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice. Specific compliance obligations depend on grant terms, contract terms, and applicable regulations.

Decisions made in the first 72 hours of a declared event determine FEMA eligibility, insurance posture, and liability exposure for the next 18 to 36 months. Most organizations enter the response window without the documentation discipline that determines what those decisions can recover. A practical checklist drawn from active disaster response work — what to document, who has authority, where the recoverable choices live.

Hours 0–24: capture the baseline

Photographic damage documentation. Every affected asset, every angle, before any cleanup or repair. Include date/time stamps and GPS metadata where available. Storage requires more space than people anticipate; cloud storage with redundancy is essential.

Insurance carrier notification. Each carrier, in writing, with a contemporaneous record of the notification. Verbal notifications are insufficient.

FEMA registration (where applicable). Individual Assistance has time-limited application windows. Public Assistance requires the agency’s formal initiation.

Authority documentation. Who is authorized to make procurement, contracting, and operational decisions during the response. This memo, dated and signed within the first 24 hours, is foundational for everything that follows.

Hours 24–48: stabilize procurement and contracting posture

Emergency procurement determinations. Each major procurement under emergency authority gets a brief written determination — what was procured, why competition was infeasible, what cost reasonableness analysis was performed, who authorized.

Contractor due diligence. Disaster contexts attract opportunistic contractors. License verification, insurance verification, and reference checks even under time pressure. Contractor fraud during disaster response is one of the most common downstream exposures.

Tenant and beneficiary obligations. If the organization has tenants, beneficiaries, or program participants, the obligations to them during the disruption are documented and the response plan is on file. California eviction moratoria activate automatically; documentation of compliance is the protective discipline.

Hours 48–72: scope, schedule, and recovery posture

Scope of work documentation. Initial Project Worksheets (FEMA Public Assistance) or insurance scope determinations (private insurance) lock in the recoverable scope. Errors at this stage cascade. Counsel involvement before signature is protective.

Time and labor records. Time records contemporaneous to the response are recoverable; reconstructed records are not. The discipline starts immediately.

Insurance proceeds tracking. The duplication-of-benefits prohibition under FEMA requires tracking of insurance recoveries against PA claims. Insurance documentation is FEMA documentation.

The pattern

Organizations that recover well share one operating pattern: the documentation discipline begins within hours of the event, not weeks. The first 72 hours are not about getting the response right operationally — operations are usually competent. They are about getting the documentation right so the financial recovery, 18 months later, can be defensible.

When external counsel adds value during the first 72 hours

Most decisions in the first 72 hours can be made by trained internal staff. External counsel is most useful when the response involves novel procurement decisions (sole-source justifications for unusual scope), tenant or beneficiary protection questions where the legal posture is unclear, scope-of-work decisions on FEMA Project Worksheets that will lock in recoverable scope, or pre-positioned retainer relationships that activate the moment a declaration occurs.

This brief is educational and informational only. It is not legal advice.

What it is

A 60- to 90-minute monthly video session, agenda-light, with 10 to 15 senior attendees per session and a rotating roster across the year. Kendall opens with a brief substantive update on something specific (a recent legislative development, a pattern from a recent declared event, a shift in FEMA guidance) and then opens the floor for peer discussion.

Off-the-record norms apply: content can be used, attribution cannot. No recording. Specific case advice does not occur in the group setting; the format is informational and relational. Attendees use the conversation to test their own thinking, to learn what colleagues across other agencies are seeing, and to surface emerging issues before they reach formal procurement or litigation.

Who it serves

• County emergency managers, deputy directors, OES chiefs
• State agency leaders (CalOES, HCD, CDPH, regional FEMA personnel within ethics constraints)
• COAD and VOAD chairs across California
• Recovery officials, hazard mitigation planners, climate adaptation leads
• Senior nonprofit leadership in disaster-affected sectors (housing, services, advocacy)

What attendees take away

• A monthly substantive update on California disaster law, FEMA practice patterns, and legislative tracking — five to ten minutes, written for senior peers
• Peer discussion across agencies and sectors that does not happen in formal venues
• A standing relationship with Kendall that supports later individual follow-up on specific matters as needed

How to be considered

Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. The roster is intentionally small (10-15 per session) to support substantive conversation, with rotation across the year so that attendees who can join most sessions and attendees who join occasionally are both accommodated.

To apply: complete the application form below or email kendall@jarvisdisasterlaw.com with subject line “Office Hours Application” and a brief description of your role, organization, and what brought you to the program.

Compliance note

The Disaster Executive Office Hours program is educational and informational. Specific case or matter advice does not occur in the group setting; specific advice occurs only under engagement letter. Participation in office hours does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute solicitation under California Rules of Professional Conduct. Off-the-record norms protect attendee candor and the program’s educational purpose.

Expert Witness Engagements

Kendall is qualified to serve as an expert witness on FEMA appeals practice, California disaster law, insurance bad-faith in wildfire and disaster contexts, the Stafford Act, disaster legal services standards of practice, and California disaster statutes including SB 455 and AB 806 (which she authored). She is available for case consultation, expert report preparation, deposition, and trial testimony.

Engagement structure: brief initial intake (no charge); paid preliminary review of materials before opinion is rendered; full engagement under written agreement with retainer. Substantive review does not occur before retainer is in place — this preserves objectivity and supports the credibility of the resulting expert work.

Conflict screening: all potential engagements run through formal conflict screening before proceeding. Conflicts that emerge mid-engagement are catastrophic; conflicts identified before the engagement letter are managed cleanly.

Co-counsel Arrangements

Kendall is admitted in California and provides domain-specific co-counsel in California matters where the disaster law dimension is central. For non-California matters, the engagement is consulting (not legal representation) under the federal practice exception described below or under standard consulting agreements. Co-counsel arrangements are typically structured around specific phases (motion practice, expert work product review, settlement negotiation framing) rather than full case representation.

Federal Practice Exception

Under Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), federal agency practice — including FEMA appeals, CBCA arbitration proceedings, and related federal disaster proceedings — is not subject to state bar admission requirements. Jarvis Disaster Law & Consulting represents clients in FEMA Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and CBCA dispute proceedings across U.S. states and territories under this exception. For attorneys with non-California clients pursuing federal disaster relief, this enables direct representation rather than referral.

CLE and Educational Engagements

Kendall is PLI Faculty and an ABA Disaster Legal Services presenter. She has delivered CLE programs to the State Bars of Oregon, Hawaii, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, plus the California State Bar, county bar associations, Pro Bono Net, and the Pro Bono Training Institute.

Custom CLE programs are designed for legal aid organizations, state and local bar associations, emergency managers, and corporate legal teams. Topics include FEMA Appeals Mastery, Disaster Housing Rights, Spotting Legal Issues in Disaster, and California Disaster Law in Practice.

Referral Relationships

For attorneys whose clients have a disaster law dimension that is outside the firm’s practice area, Kendall accepts referrals on a case-by-case basis. Referring counsel are kept informed throughout the engagement (with appropriate confidentiality), receive a debrief at conclusion, and are typically the primary recipient of any final work product the client is willing to share. Reciprocal referrals on non-disaster matters are routine.

Initial intake calls with attorneys are no-charge and brief. Substantive review of case materials occurs under engagement letter.

Recommended Resources

If you are inquiring on behalf of an organization

If you are an attorney, agency representative, or nonprofit professional inquiring on behalf of a government, nonprofit, or corporate client — rather than as an individual survivor — please return to the Contact page and select the appropriate inquiry type.

This page is for informational purposes only. Inclusion of an external resource is not an endorsement; you should verify each resource’s current eligibility criteria and contact information independently.