On the evening of July 30, 2022, lightning struck WareHouse’s property at 121 Industrial Park Drive causing a fire at the warehouse.
Shilla Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) is a South Korean corporation that manufactures automobile parts and maintains suppliers in Mississippi and other southern states. Shilla alleges “approximately $5,000,000.00 worth of business property” was stored at WareHouse 72’s Water Valley property when a lightning strike caused it to burn down.
WareHouse 72, LLC (“WareHouse”) is a domestic warehousing entity created under Mississippi law by Sasha Hyde (26%), Frank Hyde, Jr. (24%), Michelle Washington (26%), and Cayce Washington (24%).
The parties signed a Warehouse Agreement and it included a clause under a section entitled “Insurance,” which stated, “Warehouse 72 does not cover damage in the event of an act of God while in our possession. Tornado, wind, Hurricane, Flooding, Fire from lightning strike, Earthquake etc.”
Plaintiff pursued claims under contract, tort, and common law against six Defendants.
Shilla retained Phillip Keena—a retired firefighter—to offer opinions regarding (1) the origin and cause of the fire, and (2) the applicability of certain codes.
Defendants contended that Keena’s offered report went beyond those opinions, however, into the realms of legal conclusions and judgments regarding parties’ responsibilities under contracts and other writings.
Defendant sought to exclude Keena, to ensure Keena does not provide impermissible legal conclusions.
Fire Investigation Expert Witness
Philip Keena holds two degrees relevant to the issue at hand, an associate degree in Fire Administration and a bachelor’s degree in Fire Protection and Safety Engineering Technology. The International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI) has also certified him as a fire investigator, and he has been a firefighter for thirty-one years. He currently works for Rimkus, a forensic engineering company.
Discussion by the Court
The Court finds his knowledge will be helpful to the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue in this case, and his testimony satisfies both Rule 702 and Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s expert is qualified to testify as to the matters outlined in his amended expert report, and any arguments for exclusion of testimony, go to the “weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury’s consideration.”
However, Keena will not be permitted to offer legal conclusions at trial and counsel will not seek to elicit any such testimony. The Court does note, however, that while experts cannot offer conclusions of law, “an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.”
The Court thus granted Defendants’ motion to exclude to the extent it sought to prohibit testimony constituting a legal conclusion.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude the Plaintiff’s expert, Phillip Keena.
Key Takeaway:
The Court also notes it is axiomatic that “experts cannot ‘render conclusions of law’ or provide opinions on legal issues.” Keena will not be permitted to offer legal conclusions at trial and counsel will not seek to elicit any such testimony. The Court does note, however, that while experts cannot offer conclusions of law, “an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.”
In conclusion, the Court is confident it can protect against the possibility of objectionable expert testimony at trial without resorting to a blanket ban on all expert testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Shilla Industrial Co., Ltd. V. Warehouse 72, L.L.C. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv138 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Mississippi Northern |
| Order Date: | September 23, 2024 |
Leave a Reply