Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness testimony not excluded even though the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s engine had a different engine than the one tested by the expert.

Facts: This case (Loy et al v. BMW of North America, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – June 29th, 2022) involves a claim that BMW did not disclose that the plaintiff’s engine was defective and which caused it to burn an excessive amount of oil.  Plaintiff Loy argues that BMW knew about the engine issue, did not disclose it to their customers, and did not repair, as required by warranty.  In order to prove her claims, Loy hired Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness Darren Manzari to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  BMW filed a motion to exclude Manzari’s testimony under Daubert.

Continue reading

Summary: Defendant hired a Fire Expert Witness to provide testimony in smoke inhalation case.

Facts:  This case (Dillon v. Maxus Properties Inc et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Arkansas – April 9th 2019) involves the death of Jannell Dillon.  Dillon died from smoke and soot inhalation after she entered her apartment to extinguish a fire.  Her estate have sued the companies that managed and owned the apartment complex, alleging that the defendants beached duties because the smoke detector within her apartment did not sound an alarm during the fire.  The defendant has hired Fire Expert Witness Ryan Baker to provide testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness allowed to testify as the defense’s argument that the expert witness was not qualified to opine on damages was denied by the court.

Facts:  This case (Endurance Capital, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co. – United States District Court – Southern District of Indiana – October 31, 2023) involves a dispute over an insurance policy.  The plaintiff was assigned rights and interests to an insurance policy which was issued by the defendant.  One night, a slew of trespassers damaged the insured property.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a claim, which was denied by the defendant.  The plaintiff filed this declaratory action against the defendants arguing that they should pay for the losses under the policy.  The plaintiff hired Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness Brian Haden to help prove their case.  The defendant then filed a motion to exclude this witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Defendants have hired an Environmental Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony in environmental contamination case.

Facts:  This case (Cooper et al v. Meritor, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Mississippi – February 11th, 2019)  involves damages to homes allegedly caused the operation of an industrial facility.  The plaintiffs, former residents, seek damages for injuries to their homes and property caused by the operation of the facility.  They allege that the facility was used to manufacture chrome plated wheel covers, utilizing numerous chemicals and that these chemicals were illegally placed in the environment with the defendants concealing such disposal.   The defendants have hired Robert L. Powell, Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff hired an Oncology Expert Witness to provide testimony related to a toxic tort claim

Facts:  This case (York v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 21st, 2019) involves a toxic tort claim alleging negligence liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).  The plaintiff, who was employed as a conductor/brakeman by the defendant from 1976 to 1991 alleges that he was exposed to various carcinogens on the job, which he attributes to his development of bladder cancer.  The plaintiff has hired Oncology Expert Witness Dr. E. Roy Berger to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Fingerprints Expert Witness testimony is allowed as the court ruled that the expert reliably applied the fingerprinting methods.

Facts:  This case (United States of America v. Lester Aceituno – United States District Court – District of New Hampshire – October 25, 2023) involves an indictment alleging a conspiracy to deposit and withdraw funds from checks and money orders that were fraudulently obtained.  The government claims that a fingerprint found on a post office box application which was written in the name of one of the victims in this case.  In order to prove their case, the government hired Fingerprints Expert Witness Patricia Cornell to provide expert witness testimony.  Cornell analyzed the latent fingerprint and identified it as a match to the defendant.  Mr. Aceituno filed a motion to exclude this expert’s testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness allowed to testify in incarceration litigation as the court ruled that he is qualified to testify based on his education.

Facts:  This case (Rogers v. Hierholzer et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – December 28th, 2018) involves a claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff during his incarceration at Kerr County Detention Center.  The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  The defendants have hired Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness David M. Mathis, M.D. to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant’s argued that the expert did not have any independent knowledge of when the hail storm occurred.

Facts: This case (Arab v. Erie Insurance Exchange Activities Association, Inc. – United States District Court – Middle District of Tennessee – April 8th, 2022) involves an insurance dispute after a hail storm allegedly caused property damage.  According to the complaint, commercial buildings owned by the plaintiff (Arab) sustained $1,407,786.75 worth of damage as a result of a natural hail storm that occurred on in June 2019.  Arab submitted a claim to the defendant, which was subsequently denied.  The defendant argues that Arab failed to establish that there was a storm during the policy period that caused damages to the plaintiff’s property.  In addition, the defendant claims that there was no functional damage to the roof system.  The plaintiff hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Steve Prosser to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this witness from testifying.

Continue reading