by

Summary: An Architect Liability Expert Witness was not allowed to testify regarding damages caused by a fall because of flawed methodology to determine faults in infrastructure.

Facts: This Case John W. Robinson v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc, Case No. 20-946 Section “G” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana) involves a dispute over details of injuries following a fall. The Plaintiff claims that upon leaving an American Multi-Cinema (AMC) movie theater, his foot was stuck on a bicycle rack causing him to sustain injuries. At the time of the incident, Robinson argues that a bench was blocking his view of a bicycle rack which led to him falling and injuring his back and shoulder. The Plaintiff believes that AMC should be held liable for his injuries because the company lacked awareness that blocking a bicycle rack with a bench will inevitably lead to harm. From the damages caused by the fall, John W. Robinson opines that his life would not be the same following the incident in terms of lost income, medical expenses, pain, and permanent wounds. With the help of Architect Liability Expert Witness Ladd Ehlinger, a damages report was made to showcase the effects of the fall. American Multi-Cinema filed a motion to limine the Plaintiff’s Expert Witness testimony.

Discussion: AMC argued Plaintiff’s Architect Liability Expert Witness Ladd Ehlinger was unqualified, especially in his published report. In the first conclusion within the report, Ehlinger focused on vision and its role in maintaining a safe environment to walk through. He relied on scientific methods as support with specifics on how far the average person can see as well as the need for visual cues such as signs or lights to indicate a hazard such as a bench in front of a bicycle rack. AMC opined that this part of the report lacked evidence from valid sources and was based on outdated information from Ehlinger’s college classes. Additionally, AMC argued that Ehlinger does not have qualifications in human factors such as how vision interacts with the environment because he is not a medical professional. Because of the flawed methodology, AMC urged the court to exclude the first conclusion in Ehlinger’s report. The Plaintiff disagreed.

Continue reading

by

Summary: A Business Valuation Expert Witness was not allowed to testify regarding infringement of a company’s technology patent because he used improper methodology.

Facts: This case Via Vadis, LLC et al v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,Case No. 1:2014cv00813 (United States District Court Western District of Texas) involves a disagreement over ownership of a data messaging system. Plaintiff Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies claims Amazon.com, Inc stole and used Via Vadis’ technology under their Patent “521.” Plaintiff alleges that the technology under Patent 521 allows users to transfer data between various electronic devices including computers. Via Ladis retained Business Valuation Expert Witness Paul Benoit to testify on how much profit had been made by Amazon with the stolen technology under the patent. He claims that the reasonable royalty for damages is over 30 million dollars. The Defendant argued that this figure was improperly based on the larger service of cloud storage, as opposed to only the patented technology. Amazon then filed a motion to exclude the Business Valuation Expert Witness’s testimony. 

Discussion: Amazon found many errors within Benoit’s analysis in his damages report. First, the Defendant claims that evidence is lacking in regards to Benoit’s claim of revenue being at risk without the patented technology. Next, Benoit’s further assertions regarding lost revenue are not based on technology associated with Patent 521, but rather are based on the larger BitTorrent interface. Third, the report used a method of splitting profits that had already been rejected by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals because it is not reliable. Lastly, the Business Valuation Expert Witness did not focus on split profits relating to the unpatented aspects of the BitTorrent technology. The Plaintiffs disagreed. 

Continue reading

by

Summary: An Auto Insurance Expert Witness and a Bad Faith Expert Witness were allowed to testify in part regarding a vehicle collision that led to bad faith management of insurance claims.

Facts: This case McGee v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2:2017cv04024 (United States District Court For The District of Arizona) involves bad faith insurance claims. The Plaintiff, James McGee, claims he was injured in a car crash with the Defendant, Elizabeth Foutz. At the time of the crash, Foutz was driving a car which was provided by her employer AAA Landscaping and had insurance covered by Zurich American Insurance Company. Following the crash, details of the collision including the Defendant’s auto insurance were provided to AAA to which Zurich responded by claiming her insurance did not cover the vehicle she was driving. The question of tort damages was also brought up by the Plaintiff concerning AAA landscaping and the insurance company’s acknowledgment of the facts of the case. Beyond these claims, the Defendant brought forth their own analysis of the insurance company’s practices with the help of Charles Hewitt, a qualified Auto Insurance Expert Witness. The Plaintiff also requested Bad Faith Expert Witness Frederick Berry Jr. to testify about standards within the insurance industry. The Plaintiff sought to exclude Hewitt’s testimony and the Defendant tried to exclude Berry from speaking during the lawsuit. 

Discussion: Hewitt offered four opinions on the case that he published in a report. In this report, Hewitt argued that Zurich acted within normal industry standards when discrediting Foutz’s insurance claims because of a DUI she received in the past. Hewitt reaffirmed that proper procedure was used when disclosing this information to the company. His ultimate argument was that Foutz breached some aspects of Arizona law and company policy in terms of loaned cars and therefore the insurance company acted accordingly. The Plaintiff acknowledged that Hewitt’s testimony is of a qualified expert opinion, but lacks additional evidence or information relating to the trier of fact that would further the Defendant’s case. 

Continue reading

by

Summary: Three experts including a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness were allowed to testify regarding lost earnings in a tankerman’s injury case. 

Facts: Carr vs Enterprise Marine Services LLC,  Case No. 19-14777 Section “G”(3) (U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana) involves a maritime injury dispute. The plaintiff claims he sustained spine injuries while working as a tankerman for Enterprise Marine Services (EMS). The plaintiff referenced the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C § 30104 for his claims. Under the Jones Act, if a seamen is injured while working, there is a right to utilize civil action as protection. An unsafe workplace and unreliable machine parts were cited as the basis for the case. Damages for the injuries, lost revenue, expenses for medical care, and enjoyment of life were sought by the plaintiff. Beyond the claims of injury, the plaintiff looked to bring three expert witnesses which included a Vocational Rehabilitation Expert, an Economic Expert Witness, and an Admiralty and Maritime Expert Witness to the case. Enterprise Marine Service put forth a motion in limine to limit plaintiff’s expert witness testimony. 

Discussion: Enterprise Marine Service saw Carr’s claims of injury and potential lost revenue as illegitimate and tried to remove all of the expert witnesses, including a Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness, Kasey Crawford. Crawford alleges that had Carr not been injured, he would have eventually entered into the Steersman Program and been a Captain in the future. Enterprise Marine Services moved to strike Crawford’s position as an expert witness in the case. Additionally, an Economic Expert Witness, Dr. Rice, suggested that had Carr continued to work until he was seventy-four, he would have lost significant profit caused by the injury. Enterprise Marine Services also wanted to exempt this claim from the case. 

Continue reading