Plaintiff, Ansur America Insurance Company, sued Defendants, James A. Borland and Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorious, Chtd., an experienced defense lawyer and his law firm, for alleged legal malpractice in handling a complex product liability case in St. Clair County, Illinois. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to meet the standard of care in representing Plaintiff in a tripartite relationship, where Plaintiff insured a company that sold the underlying plaintiff a shower stool that broke, causing her to fall and dislodge hardware recently placed by a surgeon in her spine.
Defendant filed motions to excude the opinions of Plaintiff’s experts Falak Shah and Sari Montgomery.
Structural Engineering Expert Witness
Falak Shah, Ph.D., P.E., C.W.I., is a managing engineer in Exponent’s Mechanical Engineering Practice with experience assessing the performance, mechanical integrity, and fitness-for-service of structural and mechanical
systems. His experience involves leading investigations of different structures, products, and mechanical systems in a broad variety of applications and a wide range of materials. He is a licensed professional engineer in the state of Illinois and is a certified welding inspector (C.W.I.), a certification from the American Welding Society (AWS). Shah has a Ph.D. and M.S. in civil engineering (with a specialization major in structural engineering)
from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a B.S. in civil engineering from the University of Florida. He has completed advanced coursework in and has experience with the analysis and design of a variety of materials,
including wood, metals, and composite materials. In addition to his degrees, licensure, and other certifications, he has a multidisciplinary certificate in the mechanical properties of materials.
Legal Ethics Expert Witness
Sari Montgomery received her B.A. at the University of Chicago and her J.D. at Loyola University Chicago. Since her graduation in 1994, she has worked as Litigation Counsel for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”) and was ultimately promoted to Senior Litigation Counsel. In those roles, she performed hundreds of investigations and prosecuted over 50 disciplinary cases before the ARDC’s Hearing Board. She also trained ARDC counsel and staff.
Since 2010, Montgomery has been employed at Robinson, Steward, Montgomery & Doppke LLC, where she has represented attorneys in disciplinary investigations, hearings, and appeals before the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court, represented judges before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and bar applicants in character and fitness matters. She has provided ethics advice and opinion letters to law firms, attorneys, government agencies and law-related businesses, and has served as an expert witness in legal malpractice and fee litigation. She has served as an adjunct professor teaching legal ethics and professional responsibility, has served on numerous committees and boards, and has authored numerous publications.
Discussion by the Court
Falak Shah
Shah was requested to “analyze the mechanical cause or causes of the
failure” of the shower stool.
Defendants argued that Shah’s opinions are irrelevant and unreliable in that he provides only an outline of untested hypotheses in his June 14, 2023 report, such that his analysis is incomplete and cannot be analyzed through any relevant means. They further argued that Shah provides failed to eliminate possible causes related to the failure of the shower stool.
Shah’s report and opinions are based on his visual inspection of the shower stool in April 2023, and a review of documents provided. The parties had agreed in advance of Shah’s inspection that the stool could be photographed, videoed, examined, and measured. Whether any additional testing would take place was left to be determined.
Shah opined that a visual examination alone did not provide him with sufficient information to determine the mechanical cause or causes for the stool’s failure to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty. He further opined that there are three categories under which the mechanical cause or causes could fall, but additional analyses beyond merely visual inspection would be required to assess each of those.
While Shah didoes not identify the mechanical cause for the stool’s failure, the Court finds that his opinions and conclusion that a visual inspection alone could not determine the mechanical cause or causes of the stool’s failure are directly relevant to the issue of whether the applicable standard of care required Defendants to retain an engineering expert to conduct the analyses necessary to make the determination.
Sari Montgomery
Defendants sought to exclude Montgomery’s opinions that Defendants violated the standard of care by:
(1) Failing to issue a litigation hold letter at the beginning of the litigation;
(2) Failing to conduct jury verdict research;
(3) Failing to timely advise Ansur and Signature of conflicts of interest over the law barring insurance for punitive damages; and,
(4) Failing to inform Ansur and Signature that there could be a $10 million punitive damage award in addition to a $1.35 million award in compensatory damages, one month before the trial, when prior liability estimates had exposure not exceeding $325,000.
Montgomery is not qualified to render opinions in this case regarding the standard of care because she lacks the experience to qualify her as an expert product liability litigation attorney
Defendants also pointed out that Montgomery has never represented a product manufacturer nor handled a case involving a personal injury or consumer products, has never represented a client who has been alleged to be liable for punitive damages apart from sanctions, and has not handled a case in St. Clair County, Illinois.
As a licensed attorney who had represented attorneys in disciplinary investigations, hearings and appeals, both for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and in private practice, the Court held that Montgomery has the requisite background and experience to render opinions regarding the standard of care Defendants owed to Plaintiff based on the applicable ethical requirements and rules of professional responsibility.
Montgomery’s opinions regarding Defendants’ requirement to give coverage advice to Ansur and the insured company in the underlying case violate the Rules of Professional Conduct
Defendants contended that if they had disclosed a conflict of interest between Ansur and the insured, Signature, Ansur would have been handed a significant coverage defense, thereby greatly harming Signature and violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(7). They also argued that an attorney retained by an insurance company to defend its insured owes a duty to the insured not to disclose facts to the insurer that might prejudice the insured’s rights in a potential coverage dispute with the insurer, as set forth in the Illinois State Bar Association (“ISBA”) Advisory Opinion, dated July 17, 1992.
In the instant case, Ansur alleged that at no time after the filing of the motion seeking punitive damages in the underlying case, did Defendants advise Ansur or Signature that there was a potential conflict of interest between them because punitive damages would not be covered under Signature’s policy.
Montgomery’s report sets forth her opinions regarding Defendants’ ethical duties and that a breach occurred when Defendants did not disclose the existence of a resulting conflict of interest between Ansur (the insurer) and Signature (the insured) on the issue of punitive damages. The Court held these opinions to be reliable, and directly relevant to Ansur’s claims and the issues raised in this case.
Defendants also argued that Montgomery’s opinions regarding a conflict of interest on coverage and punitive damages conflict with an Illinois State Bar Association Advisory Opinion and are therefore impermissible.
However, the ISBA opinion itself stated “While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and other relevant materials in response to a specific hypothesized fact situation, they do not have the weight of law.”
Montgomery’s opinions regarding Defendants’ communications to Ansur about the liability and damages exposure in the underlying case should be barred because she doesn’t have education, training, or experience in evaluating a product liability case
Defendants asserted that her opinions, claiming Defendants violated Rule 8.4(c) and were dishonest and deceitful, are “off base” because she has never handled a product liability case and would not know whether rapid changes in the case as it approaches trial require different or additional reporting.
The Court held that Montgomery has the requisite background and experience to render opinions regarding the standard of care Defendants were required to meet based on the applicable ethical requirements and rules of professional responsibility. Specific experience with respect to product liability litigation is not required in this case.
Finally, Defendants argued that Montgomery’s opinion regarding Defendants’ failure to conduct appropriate jury verdict research should be barred because she lacks experience in product liability defense, cannot opine how a product liability defense lawyer determines exposure, has never done product liability defense jury verdict research, and did not conduct her own jury verdict research before rendering her opinion. On this point, the Court agreed. Montgomery failed to provide a basis for this particular opinion, and her background and experience alone do not suffice.
Held
- The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Falak Shah.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Sari S. Montgomery.
Key Takeaway:
Defendants’ argument that Shah’s opinions are unreliable because they do not address each of the Daubert factors fails as well. Here, Shah’s methodology and analysis were appropriate given the issues and under the circumstances presented. He performed a visual inspection as agreed before opining that he could not determine the cause the stool’s failure solely based on that type of inspection, which is an issue presented in this case.
Montgomery’s opinion regarding Defendants’ failure to conduct appropriate jury verdict research was barred because she lacks experience in product liability defense, cannot opine how a product liability defense lawyer determines exposure, has never done product liability defense jury verdict research, and did not conduct her own jury verdict research before rendering her opinion. However, specific experience with respect to product liability litigation is not required in this case. Montgomery has the requisite background and experience to render opinions regarding the standard of care Defendants were required to meet based on the applicable ethical requirements and rules of professional responsibility.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Ansur America Insurance Company V. Borland Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:21cv59 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Order Date: | September 30, 2024 |
Leave a Reply