Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Making and Defending Challenges

Transcription

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Making and Defending Challenges Navigating Daubert Standards for Expert Witnesses in Design and Construction Defect Claims TUESDAY, APRIL 29, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Thomas R. Buchanan, President, McDowell Rice Smith & Buchanan, Kansas City, Mo. José Ramón González-Magaz, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C. Brendan J. Peters, Partner, Perkins Coie, Seattle The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at ext. 35.

4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

5 Daubert Challenges in Construction Litigation By: Thomas R. Buchanan, Esq. Jose Gonzalez, Esq. Brendan Peters, Esq.

6 Overview Daubert trilogy and more recent Supreme Court cases Daubert s application in construction Reliability and relevance issues. Scheduling, construction defect and damages. Daubert s future impact on construction claims. Lessons learned. 6

7 Frye v. United States 293 F (D. D.C. 1923) In Frye, the court held that the methodology underlying the lie-detector test was not generally accepted and excluded evidence of a successful test by the defendant. (1923 lie detector) 7

8 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) Overruled Frye, charged courts to act as gatekeepers to exclude irrelevant and/or unreliable expert testimony and set forth a flexible test and some factors to consider: Testability of the method Peer review and publication of the method The error rate for the method General acceptance of the method 8

9 General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997) At the time Joiner was decided, there was a split among the circuits concerning the appropriate standard of review of Daubert rulings. Supreme Court reversed 11 th Circuit s overly stringent standard of review of District Court s Daubert ruling, holding that appellate review is an abuse of discretion standard. 9

10 General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997) The Supreme Court further held: "[C]onclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data. But nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered." 522 U.S. at

11 Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) District Court excluded testimony of tire failure expert in tire blowout/rollover case using Daubert analysis. (actual photo of tire in Kumho) 11

12 Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that Daubert only applied to the application of scientific principles rather than skill or experience-based observation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Daubert applied to expert testimony based upon technical and other specialized knowledge. [A]n expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, [must] employ in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. 526 U.S. at

13 Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) District Court admitted expert testimony concerning the origin of a fatal fire, and the plaintiff prevailed at trial. Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the expert testimony was scientifically unreliable, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict and directed the district court to enter judgment for the defendant. 13

14 Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) The Supreme Court upheld the Eighth Circuit s ruling, holding under F.R.C.P. 50 that the authority of courts of appeals to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law extends to cases in which, on excision of testimony erroneously admitted, there remains insufficient evidence to support a jury s verdict. 528 U.S. at

15 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ---,131 S.Ct (2011) In Dukes, an employment class action, the Supreme Court did not rule directly on the issue, but did indicate that a full Daubert analysis may be warranted: The District Court concluded that Daubert did not apply to expert testimony at the certification stage of class-action proceedings. We doubt that is so[.] Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at

16 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case 16

17 How Courts Apply Daubert Qualifications of the expert Expert bias Testability of the expert s theory Error rate General acceptance in the field Fit Expert s method independent or for litigation Extrapolation Accounting for alternative explanations General acceptance of the field itself 17

18 Practical Considerations Cost Timing Likelihood of success Requisite knowledge or expertise 18

19 Strategic Considerations Permits cumulative or inadmissible evidence. Impact on case value. Relationship to summary judgment. Impact when experts intertwined. Setting the stage for a challenge. Maximizing the benefits. 19

20 Examples of Daubert in Construction Hydrologist s groundwater model stricken. Engineer s analysis of concrete failure stricken. Geotechnical engineer s opinions withdrawn. Geotechnical engineer s opinions admissible but against the weight of engineering community. Cases settled before ruling. 20

21 Construction Expert Qualifications Hewitt v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc., 82 F.R.D. 681, (M.D. Fla. 2010)(Non-engineer insurance adjustor may opine as to wind as cause of roof damage.) Johnson v. Inland Steel Co., 140 F.R.D. 367, (N.D. Ill. 1992)(Prohibited occup. Health physician from testifying re design & construction of staircase). Taylor Pipeline Const. Inc. v. Directional Road Boring, Inc., 438 F.Supp.2d 696, (E.D. Tex. 2006)(Construction expert may not testify re duties.) 21

22 Expert Qualifications Con t. Nichols v. Allstate Texas Lloyd s, 2005 WL , *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2005) (in claim involving mold growth caused by a leaking roof, expert was permitted to discuss general causation issues concerning mold growth, but, as the expert was not an engineer or a contractor, the expert was not qualified to testify as to whether any construction defect or engineering issues may have caused or contributed to the mold). Buddy s Plant Plus Corp. v. CentiMark Corp., --- F.Supp.2d --- (W.D. Penn. Oct. 18, 2013) (in construction defect case involving installation of roof coating system, Plaintiff challenged Defendant s engineer expert on the basis that the expert was not qualified to testify as to condensation damage to the roof due to a lack of expertise in condensation issues. The Court found the expert sufficiently qualified, holding: [W]itnesses may be competent to testify as experts even though they may not... be the best qualified. Who is best qualified is [a] matter of weight upon which reasonable jurors may disagree. ) 22

23 Daubert and Case Management Rule 702: provides trial courts with substantial discretion in crafting methods to evaluate the admissibility of expert evidence. Rule 706: Court-appointed experts Rule 104: Hearing: Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply Preponderance of the evidence standard 23

24 Daubert by the Numbers Increase from 30% exclusion rate, pre-daubert to as much as 55% post-daubert. (Dixon/Gill 2002) Defendants challenges successful 66% of the time, compared to less than 50% for plaintiffs, a pattern repeated on appeal. (Risinger 2000) The most recent data shows an 87% affirmance rate for Daubert challenges (PWC study). Summary judgment affirmance rate is 77-78%. 24

25 Daubert by the Numbers Success rate of exclusion, by Daubert factor: Reliability 60% Relevance ( Fit ) 40% Lack of peer review/publication 30% Qualifications 20% General acceptance 10% excluded even where method was generally accepted, 90% where it not generally accepted Error rate 20% (Dixon/Gill 2002) 25

26 Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Making and Defending Challenges Is the construction-related testimony reliable and relevant? Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Magaz April 29,

27 As with expert qualifications, the court has broad discretion to decide (1) the factors to be considered when determining reliability, and (2) the ultimate determination as to reliability. D&D Assoc., Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Plainfield, No. Civ. A (MLC), 2006 WL , at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2006) (citing Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142 (1999)). 27

28 Daubert in Construction Cases: Reliability Expert testimony must be reliable. Test of reliability is flexible and depends upon the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue. Kumho Tire. Daubert s reliability factors do not necessarily apply to every expert in every case. Has the theory been tested? Subjected to peer review and publication? Known or potential error rate? Standards and controls regarding the technique Degree of acceptance in the relevant scientific community Expert must employ the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. Kuhmo Tire, 526 U.S. at

29 Daubert Reliability Attacks FRE 702(b) reliability of facts or data underlying expert opinion Reliance on inaccurate data (contradicted by facts) Reliance on invalid or inaccurate assumptions Inconsistent with facts Not scientifically sound Dependent upon other experts? Cherry picking the facts 29

30 Daubert Reliability Attacks FRE 702(c) reliability of expert s principles or methodology Not generally accepted Absence of standards Cannot be tested/validated Known error rates 30

31 Daubert Reliability Attacks FRE 702(d) reliability of application of method to facts Failed to follow methodology Failed to consider alternative explanations Errors (e.g., calculations, inadvertent integration of data) Bias 31

32 Daubert in Construction Cases: Reliability Daubert challenge should address the principles and methodology used to form the opinion, not the expert s conclusions Good grounds must support the opinion. First-hand knowledge not required Expert can rely on his own expertise and the observations of others. FRE 703: An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. Flaws in factual assumptions go to credibility Clearly erroneous exception 32

33 Daubert in Construction Cases: Reliability Corner Pocket, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. (W.D. Pa. 2013) Good grounds supported architect s expert opinion Expert well within his purview to rely on observations and conclusions of others to form his own opinion regarding property damage LaShip, LLC v. Hayward Baker, Inc. (E.D. La. 2013) Causation opinion unreliable where expert failed to consider alternative causes for damage to property 5 th Circuit precedent that exclusion of alternatives is necessary for reliable causation opinion 33

34 Daubert in Construction Cases: Reliability HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton-King (Ga. 2010) Engineer expert lacked experience designing, reviewing, or evaluating a bridge construction project Opinions regarding bridge construction design deemed unreliable as based on engineering judgments Miracle Temple Christian Academy v. Church Mut. Ins. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2013) Expert examined the property more than two years after damage occurred and after repairs began Relied on pictures of the property, taken prior to the repairs Expert opinion regarding property damage still deemed reliable Flaws in the expert report could be highlighted at trial 34

35 Daubert in Construction Cases: Causation Court may (should) consider a causation expert s failure to account for obvious alternative explanations. FRE 702 Advisory Committee s Note to 2000 Amendments Courts both before and after Daubert have found other factors relevant in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable, including [w]hether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations. 5 th Circuit Rule: The exclusion of alternatives is necessary for a reliable causation opinion. See Michaels v. Avitech, Inc., 202 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 2000). 35

36 Focus on the Details Small mistakes lead to large errors Check every specification, construction phase schedule, change order, etc. Get out the calculator 36

37 Daubert in Construction Cases: Relevance Expert testimony must be relevant Low relevancy threshold Relevant evidence logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party s case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1995) ( Daubert II ). Testimony must fit the underlying cause of action Must be connected to facts and law at issue Must be helpful to the trier of fact Should not include legal conclusions 37

38 Daubert in Construction Cases: Relevance Steffy v. Home Depot, Inc. (M.D. Pa. 2008) Appraiser s expert opinion regarding value of property excluded as irrelevant Appraiser relied on pure speculation regarding future zoning Billiott v. Cove Mountain Realty, Inc. (E.D. Tenn. 2008) Architect s expert opinion regarding what building codes applied to the property was a legal conclusion Testimony still relevant to aid the trier of fact as to whether the building codes were followed 38

39 Daubert in Construction Cases: Relevance D&D Assoc., Inc. v. Board of Educ. Of North Plainfield (D.N.J. 2006) Expert report regarding the advice and quality of legal services provided by the defendant s attorney to the defendant did not fit the complaint s allegations that the attorney breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. Opinion as to damages was also irrelevant where expert did not review plaintiff s damages, and stated only that the source of damages was self-evident. Hutton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of Coffeyville (D. Kan. 2004) Expert s opinion regarding industry custom deemed irrelevant because contract language was not ambiguous, did not contain technical language, and expressly negated the expert s conclusion. Opinion also inadmissible as legal conclusion regarding contract s liquidated damage provision 39

40 Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation Brendan Peters Perkins Coie LLP Strafford CLE Webinar April 29, 2014

41 Daubert s Application to Construction Scheduling Construction Defects Quantifying Damages Impact Claims 41

42 Critical Path Method Approaches Daubert & Scheduling Ex. Windows Method Representative Cases Weitz Co., LLC v. MH Washington, LLC, 631 F.3d 510, (8th Cir. 2011). MACTEC, Inc. v. Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC, 2008 WL (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2008). RLI Ins. Co. v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 2007 WL (D. Del. 2007). Weitz Co., LLC v. MacKenzie House, LLC, 2009 WL (W.D. Mo. 2009). 42 Focus on application of the methodology

43 Daubert & Construction Defects Design Professional Testimony Reference Standards Standard of Care Representative Cases Burbach Aquatics, Inc. v. City of Elgin, 2011 WL (N.D. Ill. 2011). First Assembly of God Church v. Fondren, 2003 WL (E.D. Tex. 2003). Interplan Architects, Inc. v. C.L. Thomas, Inc., 2010 WL (S.D. Tex. 2010). Residences at Ocean Grande, Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., 2009 WL (S.D. Fla. 2009). 43 Focus on application of the methodology

44 Daubert & Quantifying Damages Total Cost Method Representative Cases AMEC Civil, LLC v. DMJM Harris, Inc., 2009 WL (D.N.J. June 30, 2009). Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. S & T Bank, 2010 WL (W.D. Pa. 2010). Focus on application of the methodology 44

45 Daubert & Impact Claims Productivity: Measured Mile L. Davis, L. Sipanowich & W. Bauer, Does the Measured Mile Measure Up? When It Has, When It Hasn t, and What May Happen Under Dauber/Kuhmo, Construction Briefings, No (April 2007). J.A. Jones Constr. Co., ENGBCA No et al., 00-2 BCA 31,000, 2000 WL (2000). United States v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., No. CV , Dkt. #123 (W.D. Pa. May 1, 2009). Impact Claims Hensel-Phelps Constr. Co., ASBCA No , 99-2 BCA 30,531, 1999 WL (1999). Focus on application of the methodology 45

46 Future Impact of Daubert PWC: Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts 46

47 Future Impact of Daubert PWC: Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts 47

48 Future Impact of Daubert on Construction Claims Building Information Modeling Clash Detection Focus on application of the methodology 48

49 49 Daubert s Application to Construction

50 Daubert s Application to Construction Focus on application of the methodology 50

51 What are the lessons learned? Some important things to keep in mind 51

52 Comments and Questions Thank you 52