Category: Expert Challenges
-
Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on the Behavior of Wheelchairs
This case arises from an incident in which Plaintiff William Dowdy was injured after falling from a temporary wheelchair while using his wheelchair ramp. The temporary wheelchair had been supplied by NuMotion while Dowdy’s regular wheelchair was being serviced and repaired. NuMotion sought to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Mark Ezra, arguing that he…
-
Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards
This action arises from an insurance claim related to a vehicle fire that occurred on May 31, 2024, in Arkansas while Plaintiff Anthony Nicholas was driving from Tennessee to Oklahoma. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company that same day. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to handle the claim in good faith…
-
Credit Reporting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Intentions
In 2022, Plaintiff Rick Fox received a letter from his student loan provider stating that it extended condolences to Plaintiff’s family concerning Plaintiff’s death. Several weeks later, Plaintiff learned that his insurance benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had been terminated after the VA received a report that Plaintiff was deceased. On July…
-
Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies
Plaintiff Alycia Johns brought this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act following several years of disputing various tradelines with credit reporting agencies based on her claim of identity theft. Johns relied on her expert, Douglas Hollon, to assert that Nelnet failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the…
-
Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction
This class action lawsuit arises out of Amazon’s practice of using smart-speaker technology (“Alexa”) to surreptitiously: (a) intercept; (b) eavesdrop; (c) record; (d) disclose; or (e) use millions of Americans’ voices and communications, all without their knowledge or consent. Such conduct blatantly violates Washington’s wiretapping law, which applies nationwide to Plaintiffs and all members of…
-
Insurance Expert Allowed to Opine on Diagnostic Methods
This first-party property damage case arises from a dispute to insurance benefits related to a July 15, 2019 hailstorm. AMCO issued a policy of insurance (the “Policy”) to PTT Properties, Inc. for property located at 411 Sable Boulevard, 525 Sable Boulevard, 501 Sable Boulevard, and 14410 E. 6th Avenue, Aurora, Colorado 80111 (collectively, “the Property”).…
-
Construction Expert’s Testimony on Financial Ability Excluded
This case arises out of the Parties’ failed construction contract. Plaintiff Fifth Side Lodging, LLC is an entity formed for the sole purpose of developing a Fairfield Inn and Townplace Suites hotel in Edina, Minnesota. Rise is a commercial contractor specializing in “multifamily and hospitality modular construction projects.” In May 2019, Fifth Side and Rise began negotiating…
-
Healthcare Administration Expert’s Testimony on Consent Form Excluded
Plaintiff Jacqueline Garrison applied for a job as a United Airlines ramp service employee. Garrison, like all ramp service applicants, had to perform a physical capability assessment. Like all applicants, Garrison had to fill out several forms, provided by Datafit, before taking the physical test. Garrison argued that the Consent & Authorization Form solicits family…
-
Emergency Medicine Was Expert Allowed to Opine on Correctional Oversight
Approximately 30 hours after Mark Beckner was booked into the Santa Cruz County Jail, he was found dead in his cell. Beckner’s son, Brandon Beckner, and his estate (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit asserting that the County of Santa Clara, correctional officers, and jail personnel were deliberately indifferent to Beckner’s serious medical needs in violation of federal…
-
Automotive Expert’s Opinion on Lost Sales Excluded
Plaintiff Sun State Ford initiated this action for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief on September 8, 2023. Defendant Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer and distributor of Ford brand vehicles, and Plaintiff is a constituent franchise dealer. This case arises from Defendant’s alleged breach of oral contracts, perpetration of unfair business dealings, and other unlawful…
