Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Engineering Expert Witness

  • Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Fenestrations

    Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Fenestrations

    This case arises from an insurance policy and its alleged breach. Riva’s luxury high-rise condominium development sustained damage from Hurricane Ian.

    The issue Steadfast raised with the Court now is how Riva’s expert arrived at his estimate. Riva hired Dr. Anurag Jain, an engineer, to inspect the property. Dr. Jain and his team investigated the property over the course of multiple days, focusing on the roofs, windows, door systems, interiors, and exteriors of the building. But they didn’t knock on every door. Instead, Jain focused on the interiors and fenestrations (windows and glass doors) in 43 of 161 condominium units, capturing 27% of the total. The units he inspected were selected in accordance with the “qualitative” sampling methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (“ASCE”) guidelines. In his report, Jain explains that this choice was meant “to cover a sufficiently large sample of units and windows and doors across the buildings and various exposures with multiple units on each floor and each stack of the buildings.”

    At bottom, rather than inspect every unit—a time-consuming and expensive process—Jain determined the level of damage in the building by analyzing the losses observed in the sample. Since he suggested replacing or repairing a specific percentage of windows and sliding glass doors in the sample, he applied the same percentage to all windows and glass doors across the building. Put simply, he extrapolated.

    Motion to Exclude

    Steadfast looked at Jain’s report and saw a house of cards. In its view, his opinions are unreliable for two main reasons. First, the damage could have been caused by Hurricane Irma in 2017, which Jain did not sufficiently rule out. Second, Steadfast claimed that the math is broken—arguing that extrapolation is a clumsy shortcut that will force it to pay for repairing perfectly good windows. To keep the jury from hearing a word of it, Steadfast sought to exclude Jain’s testimony.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Dr. Anurag Jain has investigated more than 3,000 hurricane-damaged buildings, including losses from Hurricane Ian, and has testified in depositions and trials involving wind-related structural damage.

    He holds a Ph.D. in structural engineering (wind engineering emphasis) and a master’s degree in structural engineering from Johns Hopkins University, as well as a Bachelor of Technology in civil engineering from Banaras Hindu University.

    Get the full story on challenges to Anurag Jain’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Hurricane Irma

    Steadfast’s argument that Jain did not rule out alternative causes of the property damage is this: because he opined that the “duration” of Hurricane Ian’s high winds caused the damage, he should have also calculated whether the duration of Hurricane Irma, from 2017, could have caused the same damage.

    The problem with this argument is straightforward—Jain did consider Irma. He testified that Riva’s property was designed to withstand Hurricane Ian, but the duration of the strong winds caused the building to succumb to its pressure.

    But Jain didn’t just throw up his hands because the data was sparse. He checked the available pre-Ian documents—including a 2021 Condition Survey Report, which was entirely silent on any window or door damage. To an engineer, that silence made perfect sense: Irma simply lacked the muscle to inflict similar destruction.

    Analysis

    Steadfast protests that Jain did not see any reported damage to the windows and doors because that is not what the 2021 Condition Survey was looking for. According to Steadfast, the survey only inspected the exterior of the property, and since the interior was never examined, the report could not have identified any fenestration damage. Apparently, this was corroborated by the survey company, who testified that the 2021 assessment did not include an inspection of the buildings’ interiors. While that may certainly weaken Jain’s opinions, it did not change the reliability analysis here.

    The narrow question at this stage is simply whether Jain adequately grappled with obvious alternative explanations. He did. In his professional judgment, if Hurricane Irma had actually caused building-wide damage, the inspecting engineers would have written it down. Steadfast insists this is a total misreading of the 2021 Condition Survey. But that kind of disagreement goes to the credibility of his conclusion, not the reliability of his threshold method. If Steadfast wants to convince a jury that the report’s silence means something else entirely, it is welcome to try. That is exactly what cross-examination is for.

    B. Extrapolation

    Next up, Steadfast challenged Jain’s reliance on statistics instead of personally inspecting each unit to determine the percentage of damaged fenestrations. Basically, Steadfast argued that “extrapolating findings from only 27% of units to the entire 161-unit complex is not scientifically valid under accepted engineering Daubert principles.”

    Look at how Jain actually did the math. He didn’t invent a number out of whole cloth; he recorded the exact percentage of damage he saw in his sample and let those real-world findings dictate the building-wide projections. For example, he found that 24% of the sliding glass doors observed in the North Building had panel framing joint rotation, a bent or impacted frame, or water penetration through the joints.

    Because those specific flaws signal broken internal sealants and compromised framing, he concluded that 24% of the sliding glass doors in the North Building need to be replaced. The math is not a black box—it is the product of simple statistics. And Jain’s sampling focus is identical to his extrapolation subject: sliding glass doors, single-hung windows, and fixed windows divided by building and categorized by the type of damage each sustained. A reasonable jury does not have to accept Jain’s conclusions as true, but his math is not unreliable.

    Jain staggered the units he inspected across 19 stories, based on each unit’s location within each building. He did this “to cover a sufficiently large sample of units and windows and doors across the buildings and various exposures with multiple units on each floor and each stack of the buildings.” The ASCE guidelines support precisely this type of extrapolation. 

    Held

    In conclusion, the Court denied Steadfast Insurance Company’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Anurag Jain.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court’s job under Daubert is to screen an expert’s methodology, not to decide which side has the more persuasive argument or to declare who is ultimately correct.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Riva Del Lago Condominium Association, Inc. V. Steadfast Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 2:24cv1056
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: June 14, 2026
  • Trucking Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Trailer Door

    Trucking Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Trailer Door

    This dispute arises from an incident that occurred on February 6, 2021, in which Plaintiff Lee James Barley was injured when he fell while loading his belongings into a trailer.

    Defendants ArcBest II, Inc. and Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. filed motions to exclude the opinions of Mark Respass, Jeffrey Marksthaler, and Michael Freeman.

    Trucking Expert Witness

    Mark Respass has 40 years of training and experience in the commercial trucking industry, including fleet safety management, risk management, driver recruiting and training, accident investigation.

    Discover more cases with Mark Respass as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Jeffrey R. Marksthaler is a licensed Professional Engineer with 35 years of experience in heavy manufacturing facilities and production management, manufacturing process and quality control, mechanical and chemical testing, accreditation, failure analysis and risk assessment for processes, materials, components, consumer products, food product, and consumer goods.

    Get the full story on challenges to Jeffrey Marksthaler’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Forensic Medicine Expert Witness

    Michael David Freeman is credentialed as a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists (UK), Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM) of the Royal College of Physicians (UK) and member of the British Association in Forensic Medicine.

    He has also taught courses in forensic medicine, forensic epidemiology, and injury epidemiology at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine and Maastricht University.

    Want to know more about the challenges Michael Freeman has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Mark Respass

    To begin with, Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of Respass on the grounds that he lacked the requisite qualifications, expertise, or experience to render expert opinions regarding Old Dominion’s scheduled inspections and maintenance of the trailer door and strap or the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCRs”) regarding annual inspections and maintenance.

    Respass made several findings including that the strap at issue was “badly worn and weakened” when the trailer was delivered to Plaintiff, the Old Dominion driver who delivered the trailer failed to notice that the strap was badly worn and weakened, and Old Dominion fell below a reasonable standard of care for a motor carrier by not maintaining the roll-up door’s mechanical components and the pull strap.

    However, Respass conceded that he did not have “expertise in pull straps” or in “determining what causes them to fail” or any expertise “in what fibers or materials were involved in this particular strap.” He also stated that he based his finding that the strap was “badly worn and weakened” when the trailer was delivered to Plaintiff on “common sense, that this is an old strap.” When asked to “put aside common sense” and to provide what “expertise he has in determining why this particular strap failed,” Respass stated that he “would not have any scientific expertise as to why it failed.”

    Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respass’ opinions are based on adequate facts or data or on a reliable methodology. Plaintiff also has not established that Respass is qualified as an expert by his “knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education” or that his technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact.

    II. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Jeffrey Marksthaler

    A. Marksthaler’s Initial Expert Report

    Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of Marksthaler contained in his initial expert report on the grounds that he lacked the requisite education, training, experience, and expertise to qualify as an expert in the testing and analysis of the door strap or operation, maintenance, repair, or inspection of commercial trailer doors, and he failed to apply reliable scientific principles and methodology to his analysis and instead relied on speculation and intuition.

    Marksthaler testified that he is a metallurgical engineer and his only education on woven materials involved a “very small amount” of a one-semester general materials undergraduate course. Marksthaler admitted that he “had no experience in what might cause fraying polyester or similar fibers or materials, such as a strap.”

    When asked for the source of Marksthaler’s information and opinion that fibers fray more easily when they are dirty, he responded that it was a video on YouTube regarding climbing rope rather than a scientific article or similar.

    B. Marksthaler’s Rebuttal Report

    In his rebuttal report Marksthaler opined that “immediately before failure, only a small section of the strap width remained.” At deposition, however, Marksthaler conceded that “he would have to think of a way” to scientifically determine when various sections of the strap failed.

    Marksthaler agreed at deposition that the idea of shock loading “occurred to [him]” before his first expert report, but he did not make any mention of shock loading in his initial report. He also agreed that none of the defense experts mentioned or discussed shock loading.

    Marksthaler conceded that he had the information to opine about shock loading before he produced his first report and the record reflects that defendants’ experts did not mention or discuss shock loading. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Marksthaler’s opinion regarding shock loading in his rebuttal report is precluded by Rule 26.

    The Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Marksthaler’s opinions are based on adequate facts or data or on a reliable methodology.

    C. Motion to Strike Marksthaler’s Declaration

    Defendants filed a motion to strike Marksthaler’s declaration, which was submitted in support of Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion to exclude, on the grounds that most of the declaration contradicted his deposition testimony, contained hearsay, and was not supported by the evidence.

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike to the extent that it would disregard the portions of the declaration that contradicted Marksthaler’s deposition testimony, were not supported by the evidence, and/or did not contain admissible evidence.

    III. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Michael Freeman, Ph.D.

    A. Freeman’s Qualifications

    Freeman acknowledged at deposition that he is an epidemiologist “with a focus on traffic crash related injuries,” not an engineer or a biomechanical engineer and he does not have a degree in engineering, biomechanical engineering, biomechanics, kinematics, or kinetics.

    Plaintiff also cited several cases in which courts have admitted Freeman as an expert, but these cases involved traffic accident reconstructions, a topic in which Freeman is well-versed.

    B. Reliable Principles and Methods

    On September 9, 2024, Adanty completed a report in which he opined that Plaintiff’s injuries are not consistent with him falling directly on to his elbows and that if the strap broke as Plaintiff reported, “he would not have fallen in a movement pattern that would result in his body landing on the left side of the ramp.”

    In his rebuttal report Freeman, however, stated that “absent video footage of the fall, there is no way to determine the dynamics of the fall, beyond the basic description” provided by Plaintiff at deposition where he stated that he fell backwards.

    When asked what biomechanical principles supported Freeman’s view that Plaintiff fell backwards off the ramp, Freeman responded that “it’s Plaintiff’s recollection. I don’t have a video to say what he says isn’t true.”

    The Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Freeman is qualified to offer a rebuttal opinion on the biomechanical aspects of the incident at issue or that Freeman applied reliable principles and methods under Rule 702 or Daubert.

    C. Freeman’s Declaration

    Defendants also filed a motion to strike Freeman’s Declaration on the basis that it is contradicted by this deposition testimony, reports, and curriculum vitae. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike to the extent that it will disregard the portions of Freeman’s declaration that are contradicted by his deposition testimony, are not supported by the evidence, and/or do not contain admissible evidence.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motions to exclude the opinions of Mark Respass, Jeffrey Marksthaler, and Michael Freeman.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert may submit a rebuttal report if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party. Using a rebuttal report as a backdoor to introduce analysis that could have been included in the opening report is squarely foreclosed by Rule 26.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Barley, II V. Arcbest II, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:22cv1921
    Court Name: United States District Court, Oregon
    Order Date: March 11, 2026
  • Roofing Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Repairs

    Roofing Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Repairs

    Plaintiffs 4612 S. 88th Street, LLC (“4612”), and OO7, LLC (“OO7”) filed their claims alleged in this matter against Tri-State to obtain the replacement cost insurance benefits provided under Tri-State Policy No. ADV 3188538-21 for direct physical damage sustained to the insured premises at 4612 South 88th Street, Omaha, Nebraska (the “4612 Building”) and 8811 J Street, Omaha, Nebraska (the “8811 Building”) as a result of a hail and wind storm that occurred on or about May 28, 2019 (the “2019 Storm”).

    Defendants Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota and Auto-Owners
    Insurance Company filed motions to exclude the testimony of Paul
    Douglas     and Ryan Scribner.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Paul M. Douglas, P.E received a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of Nebraska in 1993. He is also registered or licensed as a Professional Engineer in 28 states, including Nebraska.

    Douglas is a Structural Engineer and Forensic Consultant with Engineering Specialists, Inc. Douglas has spent 15 years with ESI dedicating a majority of his work to forensic engineering projects which he describes as “investigations to determine why building structures or machines fail to function in the way they were intended to.”

    Get the full story on challenges to Paul Douglas’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Roofing Expert Witness

    Ryan Scribner is a general contractor and owner of Scribner Enterprises, Inc., which specializes in roofing installation and replacement.

    Get the full story on challenges to Ryan Scribner’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    Paul Douglas

    Douglas personally inspected the buildings that are the subject of this lawsuit, as well as others, on April 26, 2023, with two other engineers from ESI.

    To begin with, Auto-Owners focused on the age and deteriorated condition of the properties. Undoubtedly, Defendants will submit evidence regarding the age of the roofs. On the other hand, Plaintiffs, through Douglas’ opinion and possibly other evidence, will submit contrary views indicating that the damage resulted from wind and hail. Again, these types of factual disputes are for the jury to determine and are not a basis for excluding a witness.

    Moreover, Defendants will be able to impeach Douglas’ testimony if they believe the age of the roofs and/or some other weather event contributed to the damage. The fact that the experts disagreed on the cause of the roof damage did not render Douglas’ opinion inadmissible.

    In this case, the Court found that Douglas was qualified to offer his opinions and that, based on his knowledge, skill, and experience, he had sufficiently explained the bases for his opinions, including his reasons for concluding that the roof damage was consistent with hail damage and required replacement.

    Ryan Scribner

    Scribner was retained to testify about the necessary and reasonable costs for labor and material costs relating to the repair and replacement of the roofs. The only issue Auto-Owners had with Scribner’s testimony is that he utilized Douglas’ engineering report when he prepared his estimate for repair.

    However, it is clear from Scribner’s disclosure and deposition that he is not going to provide expert testimony as to the condition of the roof himself. He is basically going rely on Douglas’ engineering report to opine on the types of repairs that would need to be done and estimate the material and labor costs associate therewith.

    Because the Court has found that Douglas’ expert opinions are admissible, Scribner’s reliance on them for purposes of estimating the repair costs is appropriate.

    Held

    The Court denied the motions to exclude the testimony of Paul Douglas and Ryan Scribner.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court found that Paul Douglas and Ryan Scribner are qualified to offer their opinions in their respected fields; that based on their knowledge, skill, and experience, they have sufficiently explained the bases of their opinions; and that these opinions are sufficiently reliable to aid the jury.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: 4612 S. 88th LLC V. Tri-State Insurance Company Of Minnesota
    Docket Number: 8:24cv245
    Court Name: United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
    Order Date: May 26, 2026
  • Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall

    Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall

    On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Martin J. Benzing visited a construction site on the Bruckner Expressway. During the visit, he climbed down a ladder and suffered a head injury. This case concerns the cause of Benzing’s injury and which entities bear responsibility for any damages Benzing suffered. Benzing and his wife, Annastacia Benzing, alleged that Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Tully-Posillico JV, Tully Construction Co., Inc., and Posillico Civil, Inc. (together the “JV Defendants”) violated three provisions of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) as the contractors, the owners, or their agents, of the construction site where the incident took place.

    Plaintiffs and the JV Defendants filed motions to preclude each other’s expert witnesses, Jason Randle, William J. Meyer and Robert S. Cargill II under the Daubert standard.

    Civil Engineering Expert Witness

    Jason Randle is a civil engineer who specializes in technical investigations and analysis for commercial claims and litigation involving construction site safety practice, including how industry standards apply to a particular incident.

    He also has professional experience in construction site safety, construction industry regulations, and ladder accidents.

    Discover more cases with Jason Randle as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    William J. Meyer holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers University, the College of Engineering, New Brunswick, NJ and a Master of Science in Engineering Science from New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in New Jersey and New York.

    Meyer is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), New Jersey Association of Accident Reconstructionist (NJAAR) and National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI).

    Get the full story on challenges to William Meyer’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Biomechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    Robert S. Cargill II is a bioengineer who specializes in biomechanical engineering. His formal education includes a Bachelor of Science in biomedical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1989) with minor in biology, and a Master of Science (1991) and Ph.D. (1994) in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.

    Want to know more about the challenges Robert Cargill has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Jason Randle

    The JV Defendants sought to preclude Randle’s testimony on three grounds: (1) he is unqualified, (2) his conclusions relied upon evidence that is inadmissible or lacks probative value, and (3) he impermissibly offered legal conclusions.

    First, while Randle is qualified to offer opinions on safety issues concerning the ladder and construction site, his opinions on the cause of Benzing’s fall exceed the bounds of his expertise. Courts have found biomechanical engineers “qualified to offer testimony regarding the forces generated by certain accidents and the likely effects of such forces on the human body.”

    However, Randle does not purport to have training or expertise in the field of biomechanics and Plaintiffs described his testimony concerning causation as “only incidental to his report.”

    Second, portions of Randle’s testimony impermissibly offered legal conclusions.  For example, Randle provided opinions on Tully’s duties. These opinions offer legal conclusions because “the existence and scope of an alleged tortfeasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for determination by the court.”

    The JV Defendants’ other contentions concerning Randle’s testimony are either unavailing or go to the weight rather than admissibility of his testimony. First, Randle’s reliance on evidence that the JV Defendants allege is inadmissible did not preclude his opinion. An expert may rely on inadmissible facts or data in reaching his opinion but may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

    His opinions, as set forth in the report, address central issues in this case, based on the evidence in the record and his expertise as a civil engineer. The proposed testimony is sufficiently reliable and relevant.

    B. William J. Meyer

    Meyer provided testimony concerning the safety of the ladder and the causes of Benzing’s fall. Plaintiffs sought to preclude his testimony on largely the same grounds as the JV Defendants sought to preclude Randle’s testimony. First, like Randle, Meyer did not purport to be a biomechanical engineer or medical expert and is thus not qualified to offer testimony concerning the causes of Benzing’s fall or injury.

    Accordingly, the sections of his report and proposed testimony addressing the cause of Benzing’s fall and injury are impermissible. Second, Meyer also offered impermissible legal conclusions that must be excluded. Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions concerning Meyer’s testimony go to the weight not admissibility of his testimony and can be addressed “through vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.”

    C. Robert S. Cargill II

    The JV Defendants proffered Cargill’s testimony as a biomechanical perspective on the causes of Benzing’s accident. Plaintiffs sought to preclude his opinions on the grounds that they are “not grounded on sufficient facts or data, are speculative, and/or are not the product of reliable principles and methods.”

    The Court disagreed. As laid out in the report, Cargill reviewed evidence in the record and set forth his perspective on the incident based on his expertise as a biomechanical engineer. These opinions are within the scope of his expertise and are permissible.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of William J. Meyer.
    • The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of Robert S. Cargill II.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Jason Randle.

    Key Takeaway

    In the context of litigation, biomechanical engineers typically are found to be qualified to render an opinion as to the forces generated in a particular accident and the general types of injuries those forces may generate.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Benzing V. Tully Construction Co., Inc.
    Docket Number: 1:21cv5315
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: March 30, 2026
  • Engineering Expert was Allowed to Opine on Hurricane Damage

    Engineering Expert was Allowed to Opine on Hurricane Damage

    On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura made landfall in Southwest Louisiana. In the original complaint, The Pentecostal Church of DeQuincy (“TPCD”) alleged that it sustained damage from the Hurricane, and that Church Mutual has underestimated the cost of repairs. The five (5) buildings considered as “Covered Property” at issue in this litigation are identified as the: (1) Sanctuary, (2) Activity Center, (3) Sunday School/Fellowship Hall, (4) Mobile Home, and (5) Pole Barn. During the relevant time period, Church Mutual provided coverage for the Covered Property.

    The Church reported its claimed loss on September 1, 2020. TPCD filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Lori Cox. TPCD maintained that Cox’s opinions will not assist the trier of fact, and they are unreliable and redundant.

    To begin with, TPCD argued that Cox’s testimony did not rely on any recognized engineering methodology or engineering analysis, and that she ignored a plethora of evidence.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Lori Lynn Cox is a licensed Professional Engineer with over 25 years of experience in forensic engineering, specializing in structural failures, construction defects, premises liability, and construction-related injury investigations. She is currently Regional Manager for Engineering Design & Testing Corp. She is also licensed in 35 states and has served as a Regional Director with ProNet Group, where she led complex investigations involving property loss, liability disputes, and building performance issues.

    Want to know more about the challenges Lori Cox has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    TPCD complained that Cox’s evaluation of the Sanctuary and Sunday School buildings was limited to a review of photographs and other engineers’ reports.

    However, the Court has reviewed Cox’s expert report to address TPCD’s complaints and finds that they are unfounded. The Court noted that Cox performed a site inspection of the TPCD buildings/structures, but the Sanctuary and Sunday School had already been demolished and rebuilt.

    Next, TPCD criticized Cox’s report because she allegedly did not give adequate evaluation of the pre-existing conditions of the buildings, referring to TPCD’s previous insurance claim as a result of the 2017 tornado. Again, the Court is confused as to what TPCD is complaining about.

    After all, Cox acknowledged that there was a “fractured and bowed roof framing of the Sunday School [that] was documented following the 2017 tornado effect…. This was documented in the estimate provided by Risk Management Services.”

    TPCD complained that Cox did not perform “any mathematical equations to determine the lateral loads that were presented to the building as a result of the hurricane.”

    Again, TPCD did not explain how her methodology is inappropriate because she did not perform any engineering calculations.

    TPCD also argued that Cox’s testimony and opinions are duplicative of Church Mutual’s principal expert. Church Mutual informed the Court that their expert’s work in this matter was to perform a limited visual inspection of the sanctuary, Sunday School and multipurpose building and recommend repairs/remediation of damages, whereas Cox was supposed to inspect the structures at issue and document their conditions with regards to improvements made following Hurricane Laura and/or Hurricane Delta. Church Mutual instructed Cox to provide an opinion as to the damage that was the result of Hurricane Laura.

    Held

    The Court denied TPCD’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lori Cox.

    Key Takeaway

    Rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the court’s role as gatekeeper does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the system. Instead, vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

    Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:

    Insurance Expert’s Legal Opinions Excluded

    Construction Expert Allowed to Opine on Repair Estimates

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Pentecostal Church Of Dequincy V. Church Mutual Insurance Co S.I.
    Docket Number: 2:22cv2782
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: February 04, 2026
  • Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Condition of the Wooden Panel

    Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Condition of the Wooden Panel

    This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff Amy Manzanares was allegedly injured by a wooden panel in Defendant El Monte Rents, Inc.’s recreational vehicle (“RV”) in November 2023.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert, Mark Goodson, P.E.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Mark E. Goodson, P.E. is a consulting engineer licensed in electrical and mechanical engineering. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University. He studied forensics at UT Southwestern for three years and has formal training in fire investigation and fire protection. Goodson has several publications in the field of forensic science. In 1984, he opened his consulting practice.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Mark Goodson’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs included Goodson in their expert disclosures. His expert designation lists three general areas of testimony. First, Plaintiffs sought to have Goodson testify about the “appearance of the lumber that was in place in the RV . . . at the time the accident occurred and whether or not the lumber was original to the RV or changed out from what was originally in the RV.” Second, Plaintiffs sought to offer testimony about “inspections [Goodson] performed on the actual RV involved in the accident and similar modeled RV inspected and the appearance and status of their paneling.” Third, Goodson’s designation provided that he will testify about the quality of the repairs performed on Defendant’s RV and whether the repairs were appropriate and safe. That includes repairs “that were in place in the most recent inspection in 2025”—after the accident occurred.

    Defendant did not question Goodson’s qualifications but challenged his testimony on other grounds. In Defendant’s view, Goodson’s testimony is irrelevant, unreliable, and unhelpful to the jury.

    Defendant argued that, despite the list of topics in Plaintiffs’ expert designations, Goodson only has one conclusion: that the wooden panel was not installed or attached properly. That conclusion, according to Defendant, is based solely on the fact that the wooden panel fell.

    Analysis

    Plaintiffs did not identify a methodology for the Court to evaluate

    Plaintiffs contended that Goodson’s opinions are based on his inspection of the RV, photographs, and his expertise in failure analysis. But Goodson testified that he did not employ a failure analysis, and Plaintiffs did not identify any expert materials showing otherwise.

    The sufficiency of the materials Goodson relied on is a different question from reliability, so the inspection and photographs did not address the question at hand.

    The only evidence Plaintiffs cited in their entire response is the following deposition excerpt:
    Q. Do you have — well, I’ll circle back to that here in a second. You are not offering any opinions about the condition of the fascia board immediately before the incident occurred, correct?
    A. Well, except for the fact that it was improperly attached; that is correct.

    Plaintiffs used this excerpt to argue that Defendant incorrectly states that Goodson offers no opinion about the status of the wooden panel prior to the accident. But the Court is not so concerned with whether Goodson testified that the panel was improperly attached. Rather, the Court is concerned that it lacks the information required to perform its gatekeeping function under Rule 702(c) to evaluate the reliability of the method underlying this opinion.

    The quoted excerpt alone does not assist the Court in performing this function, and Plaintiffs did not attach or cite any other evidence. Goodson himself answered “No” when asked if he used any “technique or underlying theory that [he] relied upon in arriving at [his] opinions.” While the Court did not give conclusive weight to that answer because it does not have the entire deposition transcript and it is up to the Court to determine if a reliable method exists, it was Plaintiffs burden to otherwise demonstrate his “testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods.”

    Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any potential method is reliable by a preponderance of the evidence

    The Findings section of Goodson’s report begins by explaining that the “actual piece of lumber has not been examined,” but that a photograph was examined. The wooden panel that struck Amy Manzanares was apparently attached to the lumber depicted in the photograph.

    Below the photograph, Goodson explained that the lumber appeared to have been ripped as opposed to cut with a cross cut technique. When Goodson was asked about this portion of the paragraph during his deposition, his testimony left the Court unable to analyze reliability. Defense counsel stated that she wanted “to understand the significance of the findings here regarding the lumber being ripped versus crosscut.” Goodson responded that “There’s no significance in this case.”

    In the next sentence under the Findings section, Goodson stated that “the lumber appears to be actual lumber, as opposed to an engineered wood product (such as MDF, Medium Density Fiberboard).” According to Goodson’s report, these “observations have more to do with fit and finish of the product; the lumber does not appear to aesthetically match what was found to be used in other similarly outfitted vehicles.”

    Neither the report or the deposition excerpts provided by both parties explain how these observations about the type of wood at issue inform Goodson’s opinions. Given no other materials, the Court cannot conclude that it is more likely than not this potential method is reliable.

    Next, Goodson’s report provided close-up photographs of the lumber to which the wooden panel that injured Amy Manzanares was attached. According to him, there is “no apparent evidence of any type of adhesive having been used.”

    While the analysis of the lack of evidence of an adhesive and screw type could be a method, the Court cannot conclude it is reliable under the circumstances.

    Potential spoliation of evidence does not bear on the Rule 702 analysis

    It may well be that it was not possible for Goodson to have a reliable method in a case where the wooden panel at issue was repaired before he could ever inspect it. The facts may ultimately show that Defendant spoliated evidence by repairing the panel after a duty to preserve arose. That is not the question before the Court here. Admission of expert testimony as a spoliation sanction is a “wholly inappropriate” remedy. Such a remedy would have this Court “flatly ignore its responsibilities” as a gatekeeper of inadmissible expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence. As a result, the Court cannot rely on what method Goodson might have been able to employ without the alleged spoliation as a basis to admit his testimony.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Mark Goodson, P.E.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court is unconvinced that Plaintiffs carried their burden to show it is more likely than not that Goodson’s opinions are the product of reliable principles and methods. The Court reached this conclusion for three main reasons. First, the evidence did not identify a methodology for the Court to evaluate. Second, even if Plaintiffs identified a methodology, the evidence did not show its reliability by a preponderance of the evidence. Third, whether Defendant spoliated evidence has no bearing on the admissibility of Goodson’s testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Manzanares V. El Monte Rents, Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:24cv191
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
    Order Date: January 05, 2026
  • Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Property Damage

    Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Property Damage

    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.

    Get the full story on challenges to Mikey Minor’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    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
  • Engineering Expert Barred From Opining on the Sidewalk Condition 

    Engineering Expert Barred From Opining on the Sidewalk Condition 

    In this facially simple premises liability lawsuit, Plaintiff Stephanie Lewis sought to recover damages incurred when she tripped and fell on the front walkway of Samuel B. Heggie, Jr.’s home while she was delivering a pizza in February 2020. Samuel Heggie having died during the pendency of this lawsuit, the Plaintiff now proceeds against the Estate of Samuel B. Heggie, Jr., represented by Patrick Heggie as the Administrator ad Litem.

    Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s liability expert, Brian Grieser, while the Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, David Johnson.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    David Patrick Johnson P.E., CSP is a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Tennessee and a Certified Safety Professional. He has over 32 years of experience in safety engineering, including work involving walkway safety and sidewalks.

    Want to know more about the challenges David Johnson has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Human Factors Expert Witness

    Brian C. Grieser P.E., C.P.S.M., CSP, CPE has extensive experience in conducting evaluations in a wide range of product, occupational, and premises projects involving litigation as well as proactive consulting. His assessments have included walkway slip resistance; recreational boat design; watercraft occupant safety; towed watersports safety; time and motion studies; work sampling; human vibration and acceleration exposure; sound measurement and analysis; and human movement, climbing, and stability analysis.

    Grieser is a member of several professional societies including the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, ASTM International, the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, the American Boat and Yacht Council, and USA Water Ski & Wake Sports.

    Discover more cases with Brian Grieser as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    It is undisputed that the Plaintiff tripped on a vertical displacement—i.e., a raised lip—of approximately 0.8 inches in the front walkway leading from Heggie’s driveway to the front door of Heggie’s house. It is also undisputed that Heggie was aware of the condition of the front walkway. The parties dispute whether the defect in the walkway (or sidewalk, as the parties refer to it) created an unreasonably dangerous condition.

    David Johnson

    A. The Parties’ Arguments

    Johnson opined that the pedestrian falls on sidewalks are often the result of the failure of the property owner or other responsible person to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. According to Johnson, if cracks in sidewalks are greater than 1/4 inch, this can create a trip hazard because it is unexpected; if such variances are found, repairs should be made.

    Johnson concluded that the walkway would be considered substandard and hazardous by ANSI and ASTM standards.

    The Defendant characterized Johnson’s opinions as largely concerning matters of common sense dressed up with technical language, or “common experience gilded by the expert’s credentials.” As for reliability, the Defendant contended that (1) many of Johnson’s opinions consisted of verbatim quotations from insurance company websites that Johnson found doing a Google internet search that Johnson himself characterized as “doing some research on some different aspects of trip-and-fall cases” and (2) Johnson’s references to various “safety standards” and “codes” are unreliable, insofar as he admits that none of the standards he cites apply to single-family residences, and none has been adopted by any Tennessee court or Sumner County authority.

    In response, the Plaintiff argued that Tennessee courts have held that whether a sidewalk is unsafe can be established by expert testimony.

    B. Discussion

    1. Relevance

    Several of Johnson’s opinions are based on the failure of the walkway to meet various international standards and codes, including (1) the International Residential Code (“IRC”), which incorporates by reference the International Property Maintenance Code and had been adopted by Sumner County at the time of the incident; (2) the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 1637-2013 Standard Practice for Safe Walking; (3) the American National Standard Institute (“ANSI”) standard 1264.2-2006; (4) standards promulgated by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”); and (5) the International Code Council (ICC)/ANSI A117.1-2017-American National Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities.

    In his deposition, Johnson conceded that the ANSI and NIOSH standards apply to workplaces, not residences. The ICC/ANSI standards to which he refers pertain to accommodations for persons with disabilities. These standards are irrelevant in this case, which involves a private residence, and Johnson’s reliance on them is misplaced and, moreover, will not assist the jury in determining whether the Defendant was negligent.

    The Plaintiff contended that the IRC code has been adopted by Sumner County and so is clearly applicable. However, the standard contains nothing outside what the common law negligence standard of care establishes. An expert is not required to establish the common law negligence standard.

    Finally, regarding the ASTM F 1637-2013 Standard Practice for Safe Walking, the plaintiff argues that the question of whether this standard has been adopted by Sumner County is irrelevant, because it is a national standard and provides a relevant guide for determining the reasonableness of the Defendant’s conduct in failing to repair the walkway. However, this is not a negligence per se case. The Court finds that this standard, too, is irrelevant to the question of whether the Defendant in this case exercised reasonable care.

    2. Reliability

    The Court found that Johnson’s opinions as a whole will not assist the jury in determining any fact at issue in this case. Moreover, insofar as he appears to have derived many of his opinions directly from insurance company websites, from which he quotes verbatim, and from a manual drafted by a lawyer and intended as litigation support in premises liability cases, those opinions did not rest on a reliable foundation.

    The Plaintiff simply has not established that Johnson’s proposed opinions are the “product of reliable principles and methods” or that they “reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”

    Brian Grieser

    The Defendant sought to offer the expert opinions of Brian Grieser, a consultant with Applied Safety + Ergonomics, a Rimkus Company, to rebut the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert. He sought to offer the following opinions:

    • As Lewis approached the area of her fall, the subject condition would have been in her field of view and available to be seen.
    • Because of the contrast in color, texture, and depth related to the section of the concrete sidewalk that had settled, the subject condition would have been conspicuous and detectable against the neighboring unsettled concrete.
    • From a human factors perspective, it is reasonable to expect that a pedestrian will encounter pavement conditions that will need to be attended to during normal everyday walking.
    • Immediately prior to the incident, Lewis did not give sufficient attention to where she was walking, which contributed to her incident.
    • Had Lewis paid sufficient attention to the area where she was walking as she approached the settled pavement, she could have changed her gait or path to avoid tripping and falling on the subject condition.
    • Given that the subject condition would have been conspicuous and was a common condition, no additional warning was needed to inform Lewis of its presence.
    • Johnson’s opinions conflict with published research related to pedestrians successfully navigating sidewalks outdoors with elevation changes substantially greater than 1/4-inch.
    • Johnson cited several standards in his report that were not applicable to the subject property and were unlikely to have been known by a homeowner such as Heggie.
    • Johnson did not provide a basis in his report to indicate that the subject condition was a recognized hazard to a typical homeowner.

    Analysis

    Having already found that Johnson’s opinions will not assist the trier of fact, the Court found that Grieser’s first six opinions are excludable for the same reason. 

    These opinions offer nothing that a reasonable jury could not determine on its own without the assistance of expert testimony. The rest of the opinions, the sole purpose of which is to rebut Johnson’s testimony, are unnecessary, as the Court has determined that Johnson will not be permitted to testify.

    Held

    The Court excluded the testimony of both the Plaintiff’s proposed expert, David Johnson, and the Defendant’s proposed expert, Brian Grieser.

    Key Takeaway

    As set forth above, under Daubert, courts assess the reliability of scientific testimony by considering such factors as (1) whether the [expert’s] theory or methodology has been or can be tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review; (3) whether it has a known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether it has been generally accepted in the scientific community. None of these showings has been made here.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Lewis V. Heggie, Jr.
    Docket Number: 3:24cv501
    Court Name: United States District Court, Tennessee Middle
    Order Date: December 30, 2025
  • Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Ruptured Pipe

    Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Ruptured Pipe

    Plaintiffs, BME Fire Trucks LLC (“BME”) and 223 Roedel Avenue LLC’s (“Roedel”), brought this action against their insurer, Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company (“Cincinnati”), seeking damages caused by a ruptured natural gas pipeline.

    On October 31, 2022, BME submitted a claim to Cincinnati, and Cincinnati retained Brian Hansen of Northwest Investigative Engineering to inspect the property. On November 16, Hansen met with BME’s facility technician, conducted an on-site inspection, and examined the pipeline. The following day, Hansen issued an engineering report, in which he concluded a construction defect caused the pipe to corrode, resulting in the rupture.

    Plaintiffs challenged the admissibility of Hansen’s expert opinions. These challenges include that Hansen is not qualified; he did not base his opinions on sufficient facts; he failed to explain his method; and he opined on a legal conclusion.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Brian Hansen has a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered professional engineer in eight states, including Idaho.

    Want to know more about the challenges Brian Hansen has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court disagreed that Hansen’s opinions are inadmissible. The record reflected that Hansen is qualified as an expert for purposes of opining on the issues in this case. During his deposition, he testified that he has had an Idaho professional engineering license since 1999; he has been retained thousands of times to investigate insurance claims; and he has practical experience involving utilities from his practice as a mechanical engineer and his prior work experience with Zilog where he was “in charge of chemical delivery [and] specialty gas delivery systems.”

    Further, the Court found that Hansen’s opinions are supported by sufficient facts and data and the product of a reliable method. According to Hansen’s report, he conducted an on-site inspection, interviewed the facilities technician, examined the ruptured pipe and the trench in which it was located, and took photographs.

    Additionally, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that Hansen’s reliance on the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the National Fire Protection Association standards was inadmissible legal analysis.

    Hansen’s opinions did not address substantive legal issues. For example, he is not opining on how to interpret the Policy’s language. Rather, he is opining on the applicable industry standards for burying a gas pipeline, which is not a matter of substance law nor an issue this Court can rule on as a matter of law.

    Held

    The Court declined to rule that Cincinnati’s expert, Brian Hansen’s opinions are inadmissible.

    Key Takeaway

    While instructing the jury as to the applicable law is the distinct and exclusive province of the Court, experts may opine on industry standards.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: BME Fire Trucks LLC V. The Cincinnati Casualty Company
    Docket Number: 1:23cv321
    Court Name: United States District Court, Idaho
    Order Date: December 01, 2025
  • Engineering Expert’s Testimony on the Lack of a Clean-Out Tool Excluded

    Engineering Expert’s Testimony on the Lack of a Clean-Out Tool Excluded

    Plaintiff David Vakili alleged that a snow thrower was defective because its design lacked a simple safety feature—a cleanout tool. To help prove his case, Vakili enlisted the support of Jack Krafchick, P.E., who authored an expert report finding the subject snow thrower defective and the cause of Vakili’s injuries. Defendants MTD Products Inc. and Tractor Supply Company filed a motion to exclude Krafchick’s report.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Jack Krafchick, P.E. provided consulting engineering services to the insurance and legal community for over 30 years. This work has included analysis, accident reconstruction, and testimony covering a wide range of issues related to machine safety, project engineering, construction practices, and construction site safety.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Jack Krafchick’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Krafchick evaluated MTD’s design of the subject snow thrower using the “Safety Hierarchy” technique. He concluded that it would have been impossible for MTD to eliminate the hazards of the impeller on the snow thrower completely, nor would it have been able to provide adequate safeguarding.

    While he recognized MTD provided warnings about the potential hazards with its snow thrower, Krafchick faulted the company for failing to include safety equipment with the machine. Specifically, he believed the company could have easily provided a cleanout tool, to help clear clogs of snow with the machine. Krafchick opined that it was MTD’s failure to include a cleanout tool that caused Vakili’s injuries.

    According to the Court, Krafchick’s report summarily concluded the “lack of a clean-out tool caused Vakili’s injury.” It is not clear what “methods and procedures of science” Krafchick used to come to his conclusion on causation. He is a “consulting engineer,” not a behavioral scientist. Neither Krafchick in his report nor Vakili in his briefing explain what qualifications Krafchick has in human psychology such that he could say that if a cleanout tool had been provided, Vakili would have used it.

    To the extent Vakili may wish to claim the idea of causation would be obvious, then Krafchick’s opinion would not “fit” the current case.

    Held

    The Court granted MTD’s motion in limine to the extent it wished to preclude Jack Krafchick from offering testimony on causation.

    Key Takeaway:

    An expert’s opinion must be one that “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Thus, if Krafchick is not using his expertise to offer an opinion, it is not one that could help the jury and must be excluded.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Vakili V. MTD Prods. Inc.
    Docket Number: 1:23cv104
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Middle
    Order Date: November 10, 2025