A large manufacturing warehouse property sustained hail damage to soft metal fixtures on the roof. The insured sought over $2,600,000 for exterior and interior damage, extra-contractual vexatious refusal to pay penalties, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. In the trial court, Alexa Lester successfully excluded the insured’s engineer’s report, testimony, and opinions via a Daubert motion. Alexa obtained favorable admissions during the engineer’s deposition demonstrating his opinions and report were not based on sufficient facts or data, were too speculative, and unreliable. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the WWBH client and the insured appealed the judgment to the Eighth Circuit.
On appeal, the insured argued that the district court erred in excluding its engineer expert and subsequently granting summary judgment in favor of the WWBH client. The insured argued the issues with the engineer expert’s report and opinions went to weight and credibility, not admissibility. Alexa and Christine Lesicko defended the appeal on behalf of the WWBH client. In a unanimous decision, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s rulings and held that an appellate court will not reverse a district court’s ruling unless the ruling is “manifestly erroneous.” The Court of Appeals also reiterated the district court’s gatekeeping role in determining whether expert witness testimony is reliable. The Eighth Circuit specifically held that while a different district court judge may well have concluded that the issues go to the weight of the opinions offered and not their admissibility, the district court’s decision in this case was not “manifestly erroneous,” as there was a reasoned basis to find, as the district court did, that the engineer expert failed to consider or account for critical information when forming his opinions.
The Eighth Circuit opinion highlights the fact that district court judges may consider different Daubert factors, and district courts have a range of choice, and its decision will not be disturbed if the court stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law. So long as the decision to exclude (or include) expert witness testimony is reasoned and not outside the district court’s range of choice, a court’s exclusion of an expert witness is not “manifestly erroneous.”
The opinion highlights the need for insurers to vigorously challenge any alleged expert testimony in federal court when critical information is omitted, there is no sound basis for the proffered opinions, and there are questions as to the reliability of the expert’s opinions because some judges may find a reasoned basis to exclude such opinions. Click the link to read the opinion in its entirety: Appellate Opinion – BLIV