Tag: Damage
-
Construction Expert Allowed to Opine on the Cause of the Leak
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…
-
Geology Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Subsurface Conditions
This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ claim that structural damage to their home at 496 Southwood Drive in Madisonville, Kentucky, was caused by coal mine subsidence. Val Smith and Gwen Smith obtained a homeowners’ policy from American Strategic Insurance Corp. (“ASIC”) and claimed that mine subsidence caused structural movement and cracking. ASIC denied the claim…
-
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…
-
Flood Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Foreseeability of the Flood
Defendants—Sanford, Sanford Health, and the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society—allegedly owned or operated the Good Samaritan Kissimmee Village (Good Samaritan), a senior-living complex located near Kissimmee, Florida. In 2017, Good Samaritan sustained then-unprecedented flood damage from Hurricane Irma that was purportedly exacerbated by a critical failure of the property’s waste-water treatment facility, resulting in contamination…
-
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…
-
Actuarial Science Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Resulting Damage
This action arises from a dispute about the payment of service fees by Bulldog National Risk Retention Group (“Bulldog”) to Plaintiff GB Group. Specifically, the dispute centers on a Service Agreement between GB Group and Bulldog, as well as an Addendum thereto entered into in July 2018 and August 2020. To begin with, GB Group…
-
Construction Expert’s Testimony on Defective Flooring Excluded
This dispute arises out of an interior design contract between Plaintiff Michael Lukacs and Purvi Padia Design LLC to provide interior design services for his 25,000 square foot home in New Jersey. Lukacs alleged that PPD was contractually responsible to oversee his home renovation project. He further alleged that the installed work is subpar and…
-
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite His Reliance on Virtual Evidence
SFR Services, LLC (“SFR”) sued American Coastal Insurance Company (“ACIC”) for breach of an insurance policy (the “Policy”) based on ACIC’s failure to provide coverage and remit payment for damage sustained by Steamboat Bend Condominium Association, Inc. (“Steamboat Bend”) during Hurricane Irma. SFR is the assignee of Steamboat Bend’s rights under the Policy. Plaintiff’s expert…
-
Petroleum Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Alleged Production Declines Excluded
Plaintiff Craig Yoho filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class of mineral interest owners alleging damages from subsurface interactions between ten pairs of horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured “parent” and “child” wells. Specifically, he alleged that the drilling and completion of a child well caused the parent well to produce less…
-
Economics Expert Witness’ Opinion on the Necessity, or Lack Thereof, of Expert Economic Analysis Excluded
The tenant-Plaintiffs in this case alleged that the Defendants, a national real estate investment and property management conglomerate, use illegal leases and engage in practices that violate the Plaintiffs’ rights under Washington’s Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“RLTA”). The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing. They sought damages,…
