Tag: Reliable
-
Chemical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Railcar Switching
Ascend’s claims arise from Rescar’s misidentification and delivery of a railcar containing resin to Ascend’s phenol unloading area at Ascend’s manufacturing facility located near Pensacola, Florida. Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC designated Aaron Imrie as a retained expert to opine on the misdelivery of the railcar and the impact of the mistake on Plaintiff’s equipment…
-
Industrial Hygiene Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Falling Debris
Plaintiff Douglas Looney, Evergreen’s employee, was standing behind a vacuum truck to wash its interior when a chunk of ash flew out, injuring him. Defendant intended to present the expert testimony of Jason Henthorn at trial. Plaintiffs asked the Court to exclude Henthorn’s testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Industrial Hygiene Expert Witness…
-
Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”) operated a retail location in Lyndhurst, Ohio. After the lone up-down escalator in the Lyndhurst Store stopped working, it was not barricaded though the escalator remained non-operational and stationery. Tiffiney Jones contended that she felt a sharp pain in her toe while climbing the stationary escalator and had stepped on…
-
Industrial Hygiene Expert’s Testimony on Environmental Exposure Limited
Plaintiffs Erica Dandry Constanza and Monica Dandry Hallner alleged that Decedent Michael P. Dandry, Jr., while an employee for Huntington Ingalls Incorporated’s (“Avondale”), was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, and/or handled by Avondale and other parties. Decedent was born in 1953, and the family home at the time of his birth…
-
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…
-
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”).…
-
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…
-
Biogas Expert Allowed to Opine on Oxygen Requirements
In 2015, the City of Sioux Falls (the “City”) “commissioned the Sioux Falls Water Reclamation Facility Digester Gas Conditioning System Project (the ‘Project’) to add a new digester gas conditioning system to its water reclamation facility that would remove high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide to concentrations below 100 parts per million volume (ppmv), and that…
-
Environmental Engineering Experts’ Source-Identification Conclusion Excluded
In this water contamination case, Defendants Dow Chemical Company and Vibrantz Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) challenge the proof which Plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) proffers through its expert witnesses that dioxane-stabilized TCA is the source of the contaminant 1,4-dioxane in what it calls the TCA Claim Wells. Defendants did so through the opinions of their…
