Expert Witness Blog

In the federal case of Fling v. Hollywood Travel and Tours, 765 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ohio 1990), the court addressed the scope of duty owed by travel agents and tour operators to their customers, with pivotal input from a Tourism & Travel Industry Expert Witness. The case arose from a violent attack on plaintiffs Doris and William Fling during a promotional trip to the Bahamas, arranged by the defendants, Hollywood Travel and Tours and Passkey International.

Background and Parties

The plaintiffs were solicited by a campground development company to attend a sales presentation, in exchange for which they received a vacation certificate redeemable through the defendants. The defendants arranged the plaintiffs’ airfare and hotel accommodations at the Emerald Star Hotel on Grand Bahama Island. On the night of the incident, the plaintiffs were attacked while walking back to their hotel from a nearby casino.

In the recent appellate decision of Harding v. Lifetime Financial, Inc., 2025, the California Court of Appeal addressed the scope of duty owed by registered investment advisors in the context of an imposter fraud scheme, with pivotal analysis of testimony from a Financial Planning Expert Witness.

Background and Parties

Mark Frank Harding, the plaintiff, was defrauded of over $300,000 by an individual impersonating Daniel Corey Payne, an investment advisor associated with Lifetime Financial, Inc. Prior to the theft, Lifetime Financial had received multiple inquiries suggesting someone was impersonating Payne but failed to post any public warning or notify regulatory authorities. Harding, who was not a client of Lifetime Financial, sued the firm and its principals for negligence, asserting they had a duty to warn the public and report the imposter to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

In the pivotal case of Hartford Acc. & Indem. v. Dikomey Mfg., Etc., D.C. Ct. App. 1979, the role of the Gems & Jewelry Appraisal Expert Witness was central to the resolution of a complex insurance dispute over the value of a lost diamond ring.

Background and Parties

The dispute arose when Mrs. Coplan, the insured, claimed the loss of a diamond ring and sought compensation from Hartford Accident & Indemnity, her insurer. The insurer contested the valuation of the ring, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish its true market value. The parties included Mrs. Coplan as the plaintiff and Hartford Accident & Indemnity as the defendant, with Dikomey Manufacturing also involved due to its role in the replacement process.

In the recent appellate decision of Hohman v. Kijakazi, No. 22-2831 (7th Cir. 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the pivotal role of the Employment Expert Witness in Social Security disability proceedings. This case provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony in employment-related matters, particularly when the expert’s methodology is challenged.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Hohman, a 53-year-old former medical records clerk and patient access representative, applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging that her fibromyalgia, PTSD, depression, and anxiety rendered her unable to work. The defendant, Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, opposed the claim, contending that Hohman retained the capacity to perform other work available in the national economy.

In the recent case of HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. VS. PRAXAIR, INC., Supreme Court of Louisiana 2025, the role of the Lost Profits Expert Witness was pivotal in determining the outcome of a high-stakes commercial dispute. This matter arose from a breach of contract between Huntsman International, LLC, a global chemical manufacturer, and Praxair, Inc., a supplier of industrial gases.

Background and Parties

Huntsman International, LLC operated a chemical plant in Geismar, Louisiana, relying on Praxair, Inc. to supply hydrogen and carbon monoxide under a contractual agreement. Huntsman alleged that Praxair failed to deliver the agreed quantities, resulting in production shortfalls and lost sales of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and aniline—key chemical products with significant market value. Huntsman sought damages for lost profits and additional costs incurred to secure replacement gas from other suppliers.

In the landmark New Jersey Supreme Court case of DeHanes v. Rothman, 1999, the role of the Health Care Economics Expert Witness was pivotal in determining the measure of economic damages in a wrongful death and survival action. This case provides authoritative guidance on the admissibility and scope of expert economic testimony in personal injury and wrongful death litigation.

Background and Parties

Mary Beth DeHanes, as plaintiff, brought a survival action and a wrongful death claim against Dr. Rothman and other defendants following the death of her husband, Joseph DeHanes. The litigation centered on the quantification of economic losses resulting from Joseph’s untimely death, including lost wages, fringe benefits, and the value of lost household services.

In the recent case of Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Supreme Court of New Mexico 2009, the role of the Workers Compensation Insurance Expert Witness was pivotal in resolving complex issues surrounding disability benefits and the admissibility of expert testimony under New Mexico’s Workers’ Compensation Act.

Background and Parties

The claimant, an employee of Rent-A-Center, Inc., sought disability benefits for a recurrence of back pain allegedly stemming from a workplace accident. The employer, Rent-A-Center, disputed the claim, arguing that the injury was either non-industrial or pre-existing. The case was heard before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), whose decision was subsequently appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

In the recent federal case of Jasmine Vineyards, Inc. v. D.R. Johnson Lumber Co., et al., No. 1:2024cv00882 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addressed the admissibility and reliability of testimony from a Vineyards Expert Witness in a dispute involving agricultural damages and commercial practices in the vineyard industry.

Background and Facts

Jasmine Vineyards, Inc., a prominent grape grower in California’s Central Valley, initiated litigation against D.R. Johnson Lumber Co. and associated parties, alleging that the defendants’ activities caused substantial harm to its vineyard operations. The complaint centered on claims of property damage, loss of crop yield, and diminished vineyard value resulting from the defendants’ alleged negligent or intentional conduct.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in 2025 that establishes clear boundaries for discovering financial information from expert witnesses in civil litigation. In Jolley v. McClain, Oklahoma Supreme Court 2025, the court addressed whether opposing parties can use subpoenas duces tecum to obtain broad financial records from expert witnesses, ultimately holding that such discovery methods exceed the scope permitted under Oklahoma’s Discovery Code.

Background and Parties

The case arose from a condemnation action initiated by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) against Christopher Charles Jolley. ODOT sought to acquire a strip of land owned by Jolley for public use, but when negotiations failed, the agency filed a condemnation proceeding in Garvin County District Court. Following standard Oklahoma condemnation procedures under 69 O.S. § 1203, three disinterested freeholders were appointed as commissioners to appraise the property value.

In the appellate decision of Kennemur v. State of California, 133 Cal. App. 3d 907 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982), the role of the Automobile Appraisal Expert Witness was pivotal in shaping the evidentiary landscape of a complex vehicular accident case. This matter involved the interplay between expert testimony, discovery obligations, and the permissible scope of impeachment in California courts.

Background and Parties

The case arose from a traffic accident involving a Volkswagen (VW) and a disputed set of tire marks and roadway conditions. The plaintiff, Kennemur, sought to establish liability against the State of California, alleging that dangerous roadway conditions contributed to the accident. The defense, representing the State, relied on expert testimony to rebut these claims and to clarify the causative factors of the collision.