Plaintiff R&J Components filed this action for negligence, alleging damage to inventory during roof renovations. Centimark Corporation and SIU Professional Roofing LLC (“Defendants”) sought to exclude Plaintiff’s damages expert, Mikey Minor, under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Engineering Expert Witness
Mikey Minor is a director of consulting and lead consulting engineer with twenty years experience with an industry-leading engineering firm servicing the insurance and legal industries on losses involving electronics,
electrical infrastructure, and electro-mechanical equipment. He supervises the entire division of engineers in multiple locations and provides support for data, salvage, and restoration divisions.
In addition to consulting on high-profile and large losses, he oversees assigning and reviewing all projects with engineering staff, developing ongoing test procedures and research protocol, and performing peer review and quality control of engineers’ work product.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff designated Mikey Minor to testify as an expert witness on (1) the extent of the property damage and (2) the value of the loss.
I. Qualification: Specialized Knowledge
Defendants asserted that Minor “has no particular knowledge, training, skill, or experience that would assist the jury as to determining [the] value of the allegedly damaged inventory.”
Plaintiff argued, “Minor has specialized knowledge in industry sources to obtain pricing and evaluat[e] unique components to develop comparison pricing where exact ‘apples to apples’ components may not exist in the market.”
Plaintiff has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Minor’s valuations and consideration of factors including the identification of each component, its footprint, operation, and more, is beyond the knowledge of a layperson. As such, the Court held that Minor is qualified to testify to these matters.
II. Reliability
A. Items 1 & 7: Failure to Determine the Extent of the Damage & Subjective Evaluations of Contamination
Defendants argued that Minor’s testimony and opinions are not reliable because he failed to determine the extent of the damage, did not identify the source of contamination in his evaluation, and made subjective evaluations of the level of contamination observed on the inventory.
Plaintiff emphasized that Minor inspected the subject inventory on two separate visits: in May and June of 2022. In the second visit, which took place over the course of three days in June, Minor and his team visually inspected, photographed, and noted the contamination and number of parts in total inventory of approximately seventy skids containing over 500 different part numbers and parts exceeding fifteen million pieces of inventory.
Minor has previously served as an expert and has worked on multiple high profile insurance claims to document damages and identify costs. His determination of the extent of the damage is supported by photo evidence that could be used to replicate his findings. He also created various categories of contamination to classify and evaluate the levels of damaged inventory.
This type of visual assessment, inspection, and valuation falls squarely within Minor’s field of practical expertise. Minor sufficiently explained his methodology and bases for his determinations in categorizing and classifying the damaged inventory. The Court is satisfied that this methodology is reasonably reliable under Rule 702(c) and has been reliably applied to the facts under Rule 702(d).
B. Item 8: Failure to Determine Fair Market Value
Defendants argued that Minor was initially retained to determine the replacement value of the inventory, not the fair market value, and that his valuation of the goods erroneously includes only the replacement value.
Plaintiff has explained that its water damaged products have a resale value of zero. Minor’s reliance on Plaintiff’s statements that the products are a complete loss after being damaged by water is not a basis for the exclusion of his testimony.
Further, using this resale value, Minor’s description in his deposition of the method he used to obtain the values of the inventory describes an amount matching the description of fair market value.
Though Defendants may raise concerns over a jury being confused or misled, the Court disagreed. Ultimately, Defendants took issue with how Minor defines his data, but such a dispute did not go to the reliability of Minor’s testimony, at least for Rule 702 purposes.
C. Item 9: Acceptance of Plaintiff’s Allegations
Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s expert “is unreliable because he simply accepts Plaintiff’s allegations.” As an example, Defendants highlighted that Minor accepted Plaintiff’s assertion that all skids claimed as damaged did, in fact, sustain damage.
Minor’s reliance on Plaintiff’s list of damaged skids months after the water intrusion, as well as checking Plaintiff’s valuations on items for values—especially at the quantity Plaintiff held—that were not readily available, is reasonable and likely necessary given the circumstances. Though Defendants asserted that “Minor’s methodology was patently unreliable because he ignored market data in favor of appeasing . . . Plaintiff,” Minor’s deposition and report indicated that he used reasonable diligence to reach opinions regarding the value of Plaintiff’s damaged inventory, checking numerous websites, confirming with outside sources, and drawing on personal experience to determine values.
Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the methodology used to confirm the values for available quantities of the claimed inventory is consistent with Minor’s expertise and has been explained clearly enough to withstand judicial scrutiny.
D. Item 10: Assignment of Value to Items Lacking Evidence of Contamination
Defendants also asserted that Minor’s methodology and opinions are unreliable because he assigned value to items that his own investigation concluded did not show any evidence of damage or contamination.
Plaintiff responded that Minor created various categories of contamination to provide a more thorough analysis, and that inventory subject to water and debris could not be sold by Plaintiff such that Defendants’ focus on functionality misses the mark.
Defendants construe Plaintiff’s response as a concession that inventory with no visible contamination is still marketable. It is unclear whether Plaintiff does, in fact, concede this point given Plaintiff’s evidence indicating that any exposure to the moisture whatsoever makes the products unmarketable because a willing buyer would not be interested in buying materials that had the risk of contamination.
In any event, this argument again goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of Minor’s testimony. A jury can determine whether it is reasonable for Plaintiff to be compensated, should it find liability, for products containing no visible evidence of contamination.
E. Items 2-6: Failure to Consider Prior Sales Data or Analyze Costs of Acquisition, Potential Resale Value, Salvage Value, & Whether Inventory Was Obsolete
Defendants list these “failures” with little, if any, explanation or reasoning provided to explain why they warrant exclusion of Minor’s testimony. The Court is not persuaded that any of these independent bases for purported unreliability are cause for the exclusion of Minor as an expert; nor would their collective effect change this determination.
Ultimately, these independent “holes” Defendants are attempting to “poke” are all factors that appear to suggest a lack of credibility, as opposed to reliability, on the part of Plaintiff’s expert. A matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony is a question to be resolved by the jury.
The Court found that Plaintiff has met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Minor’s methods and opinions were reliable and will help a jury’s understanding or determination as to the extent of the damage and the value of the loss.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ joint motion to exclude the testimony of Mikey Minor.
Key Takeaway
The Court need not determine that the expert testimony a litigant seeks to offer into evidence is irrefutable or certainly correct. As with all other admissible evidence, expert testimony is subject to being tested by “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | R&J Components Corporation V. Centimark Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv358 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, South Carolina |
| Order Date: | November 18, 2025 |
Leave a Reply