This is a subrogation action resulting from a water loss that occurred in January of 2021 at a single family home located in Cranston, Rhode Island.
Defendant filed a motion to prevent one of Plaintiff’s experts—Thomas F. Zarek—from testifying as to the source of the damage at trial.
Construction Expert Witness
Thomas F. Zarek has significant experience in the construction and remodeling of homes and commercial businesses.
Zarek has been responsible for a variety of forensic engineering assignments, on average between 200 and 300 assignments per year. These have comprised not only heating system failures, but freeze loss examinations, piping and plumbing systems, water and wastewater distribution systems, fire investigation, and failures of commercial and residential systems.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant argued that: (1) Zarek did not have the relevant plumbing experience to determine whether Defendant’s actions caused the leak; and (2) he did not understand how a fuel usage analysis works, and has not conducted one himself, even though he relied on one in his report.
Here, Defendant failed to show that Zarek is either unqualified as a plumbing expert or that the materials that he relied on in forming his opinion are unreliable. As his CV indicates, Zarek possesses decades of relevant experience conducting plumbing investigations. Additionally, as Plaintiff pointed out, Zarek’s alleged inability to understand how the formula underlying a fuel usage analysis is calculated does not relate to whether he improperly relied on this information in reaching his conclusion.
Separately, the Court acknowledged that Plaintiff asked Zarek to conduct a subsequent report after he performed an earlier, inconsistent one during this litigation.
While Zarek’s original report noted that the freezing weather might have caused damage to the plumbing here, his updated report ruled this out as a potential option.
As with Zarek’s knowledge of the source material underlying his expert report, Defendant can remedy this issue on cross-examination and by impeaching Zarek with his prior report, rather than seeking its exclusion altogether.
Held
The Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s Daubert motion in limine to prevent Thomas Zarek from testifying about the cause of the leak.
Key Takeaway
Zarek’s alleged inability to understand how the formula underlying a fuel usage analysis is calculated does not relate to whether he improperly relied on this information in reaching his conclusion. For example, an expert should be able to rely on a weather forecast in order to conclude whether it was a nice day outside without needing to explain to someone the science underlying the forecast itself.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s Lond. v. Sonner Plumbing, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv258 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Rhode Island |
| Order Date: | June 30, 2026 |
Leave a Reply