Plaintiff ZP No. 332, LLC hired Defendant Huffman Contractors, Inc. as the general contractor on a real estate development project. Huffman allegedly failed to complete the work adequately, and ZP eventually declared a default on the construction contract. That gave the parties’ surety, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, several options under a performance bond. From those options, Travelers chose to take over Huffman’s contract, hire subcontractors, and finish the project. ZP claimed that Travelers did not fulfill the construction contract adequately after it took over and sued both Huffman and Travelers for breach of contract.
ZP promised to prove the cause of the property’s lost value (i.e., Huffman and Travelers’s alleged delays) through a forensic scheduling expert, Kevin Coyne. Huffman filed a Daubert motion to exclude Coyne’s testimony.
Construction Expert Witness
Kevin Coyne, P.E., PSP has more than 20 years of construction management, project controls and construction claims experience. He has been invited to speak throughout North America on a variety of engineering and construction topics and has served as a guest lecturer in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering at George Mason University.
Discussion by the Court
Coyne is a ‘forensic scheduler’ who purports to have performed a “detailed causation analysis” regarding alleged construction delays. Huffman lodged three categories of complaints about Coyne’s expected testimony: (1) He does not use what Huffman claims is the best available method; (2) his analysis disregards facts in Huffman’s favor, such as evidence that ZP itself may have been responsible for some delays; and (3) his opinions are too favorable to ZP.
First, Huffman argued that Coyne “did not cite” “the most recognized industry standard” for the form of analysis he used. After reviewing his report and the opinions of Huffman’s rebuttal expert, the Court found that the principles and methods Coyne used are more likely than not reliable. Huffman is welcome to argue to the jury that Coyne should have taken a different approach.
Coyne discussed at length how he validated the data sources he relied on, and the Court finds that the facts that underlie his opinions are more likely than not sufficient. Therefore, cross-examination—not exclusion—is the solution to Huffman’s concerns about how Coyne handled facts allegedly unfavorable to ZP’s position.
Huffman also asserted that Coyne’s “one-sided opinions” made his testimony “inadmissible.” To the extent that argument is about Coyne allegedly ignoring evidence that ZP itself may have contributed to project delays, it is simply the same contention addressed above, wearing a different mask, and the Court has already concluded that Huffman’s concern goes to weight, not admissibility. Insofar as Huffman raises a new issue here, it fails because credibility is a question for the jury, not a matter for a Daubert motion or summary judgment.
Held
The Court denied Huffman’s motion to exclude the testimony of Kevin Coyne.
Key Takeaway:
While an expert’s testimony must be based on “good grounds” and constitute “more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation,” neither Fed. R. Evid. 702 nor Daubert requires an expert to use the method opposing counsel would select or even the best or most recommended method.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Zp No. 332, LLC V. Huffman Contractors, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv611 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Virginia Eastern |
| Order Date: | November 04, 2025 |
Leave a Reply