Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Fair Market Value

  • Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Actual Cash Value of the Home

    Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Actual Cash Value of the Home

    On November 10, 2022, Kenneth and Phyllis Zerr perished in a house fire. Plaintiffs—the Zerrs’ children and Kenneth Zerr’s estate—alleged that the fire was caused by a defective dehumidifier produced by Gree.

    Defendants sought to call an insurance adjuster, Steven Weitz, to testify as to the value of the home, and its contents, before and after the fire. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude his testimony.

    Insurance Expert Witness

    Steve Mark Weitz is a Licensed Independent Adjuster licensed in California with over 30 years of experience in analyzing loss claims, with a focus on residential fire losses.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs did not challenge Weitz’s credentials. Rather, they argued that Weitz’s opinion should be excluded because he evaluated the “actual cash value” of the home and its contents, where Missouri law requires damages to be assessed using the “fair market value” of the property before and after the fire.

    The question before the Court, then, is whether Defendants have shown that that it is more likely than not that Weitz’s “replacement cost less depreciation” testimony would “help the trier of fact to determine” the property’s “fair market value.”

    Missouri Approved Jury Instruction (MAI) 16.02 defines “fair market value” as “the price that the property in question would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obliged to sell it and when bought by one willing or desirous to purchase it but who is not compelled to do so.”

    It is the Defendants’ burden to show that Weitz’s testimony is more likely than not admissible under Rule 702. However, Defendants produced no statute, jury instruction, or case law suggesting that testimony about “replacement cost less depreciation” would help the jury determine “fair market value” as defined in MAI 16.02. Instead, they cited cases from distinctly different contexts, in which courts interpreted “actual cash value” as “fair market value,” not cases in which courts allowed parties to establish “fair market value” by presenting evidence of “replacement cost less depreciation,” as Defendants propose. Moreover, they made the specious claim that Weitz “employed the same standard” as MAI 16.02, citing two parts of his report that relate to his valuation of the contents of the Zerrs’ home, not the structure.

    Held

    The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Steven Weitz.

    Key Takeaway

    Defendants have failed to establish the admissibility of Weitz’s testimony under Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence because mischaracterization of the expert’s report is not a strong foundation for an
    argument.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Fire Investigation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on UL Listing

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hillman V. Gree USA, Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:23cv830
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Eastern
    Order Date: May 26, 2026
  • Appraisal Expert Allowed to Opine on Just Compensation

    Appraisal Expert Allowed to Opine on Just Compensation

    This case concerns an alleged taking of nearly eighteen acres of real property within the bounds of the Lafitte Area Independent Levee District  (“LAILD”) in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

    CMP owns property within the boundaries of the LAILD in Jefferson Parish. As part of the Rosethorne Basin Lafitte Tidal Protection Levee Project, LAILD entered CMP’s property on or about May 27, 2024, to raise the height of an existing levee. Nearly three months later, on August 22, 2024, LAILD passed Resolution 495, which provided for the appropriation of the portion of CMP’s land containing the levee. CMP filed the suit against LAILD for failure to pay just compensation for a taking under the Louisiana Constitution.

    Throughout the course of the underlying suit, CMP hired three experts, Baldwin R. Justice, Dr. Fred Fellner, and Dr. Malcolm Guidry to assist in calculating the value of its land occupied by LAILD. LAILD sought to exclude, or alternatively limit, the testimony of CMP’s expert witnesses.

    Arborist Expert Witnesses 

    Frederick Joseph Fellner, Ph.D.  worked for Louisiana State University for 25 years as an Arboricultural and Green Infrastructure Manager.  In this role, he was responsible for “all landscape construction” including “protection . . . pre, during and post construction” and oversaw “risk reduction for the protection of people and property from failure of trees.” 

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

    Dr. Malcolm M. Guidry is a consulting arborist with more than 30 years of experience in arboriculture, urban forestry, tree risk assessment, and forensic tree investigations. He has provided expert consulting services since 1991 in matters involving tree appraisal, tree health diagnosis, construction-related tree impacts, and urban forest management.

    He is licensed as a consulting arborist in both Louisiana and Mississippi and is affiliated with professional organizations including the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture.

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

    Appraisal And Valuation Expert Witness

    Baldwin R. Justice is a general certified real estate appraiser in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida and Alabama, and he has extensive experience in the appraisal of nearly all property types in markets across our entire geographic coverage area. He has also been awarded the prestigious the MAI designation by the Appraisal Institute®. Finally, Justice has been qualified as an expert witness in the field of real estate appraisal and provided testimony in numerous local, state, federal, and Unites States Tax courts throughout the region.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    LAILD did not challenge the qualifications of Justice, Fellner, or Guidry, nor did it argue that their expert reports are the products of unreliable methodology or principles. Instead, LAILD contended that the expert reports of Justice, Fellner, and Guidry are irrelevant because they applied an improper method of valuation and/or compensation.

    Here, the Court found that the expert report of Justice, along with Fellner and Guidry’s joint report, are relevant to the issue of damages. All three experts opine on the valuation of the land taken by LAILD, and their reports will assist the jury in understanding the appropriate amount of compensation, if any, owed to CMP. Moreover, the Court found that the testimony based on the expert reports did not present a danger of unfair prejudice, will not confuse the issues, or mislead the jury.

    The Court has found that LAILD engaged in an unconstitutional partial taking of CMP’s property and determined that CMP is entitled to recover damages pursuant to the theory of inverse condemnation under Louisiana law. Specifically, the Court reasoned that CMP would be entitled to present evidence relating to the “highest and best use” of the taken property, severance damages, and fair market value of the property.

    In sum, the Court’s determination as to the legal standard for any damages undercuts LAILD’s argument, as such evidence is relevant for the jury in deciding the factual determination of damages. Because CMP’s expert reports enumerate damages consistent with those categories, the Court declined to exclude the testimony of the experts as to their expert reports under Rule 403. Importantly, to the extent that any portion of the reports are inconsistent with the Court’s legal determination of appropriate damages for a partial taking, the experts will be precluded from testifying as to those inconsistent parts of the reports.

    Held

    The Court denied LAILD’s motion to exclude, or alternatively limit, the testimony of CMP’s expert witnesses, Baldwin Justice, Dr. Fred Fellner, and Dr. Malcolm Guidry.

    Key Takeaway

    Even if evidence satisfies the requirements of Rule 702, other evidentiary rules, such as Rule 403, may still operate to exclude the evidence.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: CMP, L.L.C. V Board Of Commissioners For The Lafitte Area Independent Levee District
    Docket Number: 2:24cv2298
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    Order Date: January 22, 2026
  • Business Valuation Expert’s Testimony on Physicians’ Compensation Admitted

    Business Valuation Expert’s Testimony on Physicians’ Compensation Admitted

    Plaintiff State of Washington alleged that Novo Nordisk Inc. (“NNI”) caused physicians to prescribe its drug, NovoSeven®, to Washington hemophilia patients by: (1) promoting it “off-label” for prophylaxis and “high dose” use; (2) paying kickbacks to physicians; and (3) paying bribes to patients, all of which rendered claims to Medicare and Washington Medicaid false.

    The State of Washington has been investigating this case for almost fifteen years, hoping to find evidence of unlawful conduct that allowed its Medicaid program to recoup money it paid for a medically necessary, life-saving drug.

    The State of Washington filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant NNI’s expert witness, Nicholas J. Janiga. Janiga’s report concluded that the compensation NNI paid to 12 healthcare providers between 2005 and 2016 was consistent with fair market value.

    Washington challenged Janiga’s testimony because “his opinions are not premised on sufficient facts or data, nor are they the product of reliable principles and methods.”

    For instance, Washington objected that Janiga analyzed only 12 physicians, and argued that he should have considered how many other consultants “in a position to prescribe NovoSeven” were paid by NNI. The Court, however, regarded this disagreement over the scope of discovery as merely a matter for cross-examination.

    Business Valuation Expert Witness

    Nicholas J. Janiga is an Accredited Senior Appraiser in Business Valuation by the American Society of Appraisers. He is currently the Managing Director of HealthCare Appraisers, Inc.

    Janiga has extensive knowledge and experience in appraising healthcare business enterprises and medical professionals’ compensation. Moreover, he has extensive experience in analyzing the fair market value of healthcare transactions and arrangements involving the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

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

    Discussion by the Court

    First, Washington argued that Janiga incorrectly assumed that the physicians provided necessary bona fide services. It also claimed Janiga’s opinion omitted other benefits physicians received from NNI, such as expenses for meals, lodging, and travel, and assistance with writing and publishing medical scholarship.

    NNI asked Janiga only to opine about whether the physicians’ compensation was fair market value. He was not asked to, and did not, opine on any other elements of the AKS’ “Safe Harbor.” Although the Court acknowledged that these were valid subjects for cross-examination, it held that they did not warrant disqualifying Janiga merely because of the limited scope of his study.

    Washington also asserted that Janiga’s report did not account for the fact that NNI’s compensation structure is based on a physician’s “geographical sphere of influence.”

    It argued that this compensation structure is improper because physicians may end up receiving work and compensation for the purpose of influencing other physicians. The Court viewed a physician’s influence in the medical community akin to stature and reputation. This is a valid factor in determining a physician’s compensation and affects the weight, not the admissibility, of Janiga’s testimony.

    Finally, Washington argued that Janiga’s report did not mention that Craig Kessler, the Editor-in-Chief of the publication Haemophilia, received “revenue based compensation from that publication whose revenue was enhanced by [NNI’s] purchase of reprints.” Washington additionally contended that NNI directly paid Kessler for his advice on this case. 

    Since Kessler’s advice to NNI on this case pre-dates Washington’s allegations that NNI inappropriately paid Kessler, any compensation he received for his advice is not relevant to Janiga’s opinion that Kessler was compensated at fair market value.

    Held

    The Court denied Washington’s motion to exclude the testimony of Nicholas J. Janiga.

    Key Takeaway:

    Janiga has sufficient expertise and experience appraising healthcare enterprises and compensation arrangements. Basically, his knowledge, background, and opinions about whether NNI compensated the 12 physicians at fair market value satisfy Rule 702‘s requirement in that his testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue.

    His testimony will be permitted because he is a qualified expert in the healthcare compensation appraisal through education, training, experience, knowledge, and skill, his report is based on sufficient facts or data, and his opinions are the product of the reliable application of principles and methods.

    Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:

    Law & Legal Expert Helps Jury Understand Medicaid’s Complex Regulatory Framework

    Hematology Expert’s Opinion on NovoSeven’s Medical Appropriateness Admitted

    Pharmacology Expert’s Testimony About the Purpose and Effect of Illegal Marketing Tactics Excluded

    Internal Medicine Expert’s Testimony Limited Despite His Physician Behavior Experience

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: United States ex rel. Siegel v. Novo Nordisk, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:23cv5459
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: July 15, 2025
  • Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness’ Fair Market Value Testimony Admitted

    Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness’ Fair Market Value Testimony Admitted

    Around 6:00 AM on April 16, 2022, a fire largely destroyed a two-story, wood frame house at 408 Oak St. in Saginaw, Michigan (the “Oak Street House”). Plaintiff Raphael Arnett owned the house, and Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co. insured it.

    Two days after the fire, Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant, seeking to recover his loss from the fire. On October 14, 2022, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s insurance claim after it concluded that the fire was not an accident but was intentionally set by Plaintiff. Defendant anticipated calling Paul Mabarak—a certified residential appraiser—to offer his expert opinion that the fair market value of the Oak Street House at the time of the fire had been $52,000.

    Plaintiff argued Defendant should be precluded from using this evidence at trial because (1) the fair market value is irrelevant under Rules 401 and 402, (2) the fair market value would mislead the jury under Rule 403, and (3) Mabarak’s opinion is inadmissible expert testimony under Rule 702.

    Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness

    John Paul Mabara is a certified residential appraiser who works for Mayfield Appraisal Services.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court held that the evidence of the Oak Street House’s fair market value is relevant under Rule 401 because it increases the probability Defendant caused the fire, which would exclude his alleged loss from coverage under the express terms of his Policy.

    Plaintiff argued that evidence of the Oak Street House’s fair market value would “mislead” the jury “into believing the fair market value of the property is a component of [Plaintiff’s] damages.” But, the upcoming trial is limited solely to the underlying coverage issue, as both Parties have agreed to post-trial appraisal, as mandated by Michigan law. Therefore, Mabarak’s fair market value testimony raises no Rule 403 concerns, either. At bottom, Plaintiff has not shown that the fair market value of his House is “clearly inadmissible” on Rule 403 grounds.

    Plaintiff argued that Mabarak’s opinion would “not aid the trier of fact in understanding or determining any issue in the case.” Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, even the most educated lay juror could not estimate the fair market value of Plaintiff’s house. But Mabarak—based on his specialized knowledge as a certified real estate appraiser—can, and has. As explained, the fair market value is relevant because it is nearly $200,000 less than Plaintiff’s Policy limit, which tends to show that Plaintiff may have had a financial motive to set the fire.

    Held

    The Court admitted the testimony of Paul Mabarak despite Plaintiff’s objections.

    Key Takeaway:

    In conclusion, Mabarak’s anticipated expert opinion is precisely the type that Rule 702 allows considering motive is one of several pieces of circumstantial evidence Defendant may permissibly point to in attempt to prove Plaintiff’s alleged loss is excluded from coverage under his Policy.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Arnett V. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 1:23cv11138
    Court: United States District Court, Michigan Eastern
    Order Date: July 25, 2024