Court Excludes Structural Engineering Expert Testimony That Discusses Depreciation

ByZach Barreto

|

Updated onFebruary 6, 2020

Court Excludes Structural Engineering Expert Testimony That Discusses Depreciation

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Statesboro Division
Jurisdiction
: Federal
Case Name
: AMCO Ins. Co. v. TAF, Inc.
Citation
: 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165353

Facts

The plaintiff, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), insured a commercial property of McCorkle Wholesale, Inc. (McCorkle). The defendant, TAF, was a tenant in the said property. TAF buys and sells hunting supplies, including firearms. On November 12, 2015, Fordham, the president and CEO of TAF’s store, made preparations to reblue a Browning A-5 Sweet Sixteen shotgun that TAF had recently purchased. As part of the process, Fordham used a torch to heat the shotgun which was resting on a gun cleaning mat. This caused a fire to ignite resulting in damage to the property. The CEO admitted that his action was the sole cause of the fire.

As subrogee for McCorkle, AMCO reimbursed McCorkle in the amount of $1,047,815.11 and filed suit against TAF seeking full amount it paid McCorkle. In response, TAF argued, among other things, that McCorkle was negligent for its alleged failure to install the proper number of fire extinguishers in accordance with regulations and that this negligence contributed to the damages that the fire ultimately caused. TAF further argued that AMCO was not entitled to any reimbursement.

Both the plaintiff and defendant filed various motions to exclude the other’s expert witnesses. In one such motion, AMCO challenged the qualifications of TAF’s structural engineering expert to render an opinion regarding depreciation and the methodology used by him for the same.

The Structural Engineer Expert

The defendant’s expert witness was designated as an “engineering expert specializing in construction management and engineering services.” The expert used his expertise to evaluate the scope of the required repairs to the structural aspects of buildings and determined which portion of the building was usable and which were not. The expert provided information to a colleague familiar with the software used to estimate the damages the insurer owed.

The structural engineering expert witness offered testimony challenging the amounts that AMCO paid to McCorkle. The expert opined that AMCO should not have allowed approximately $7,094.00 for soda blasting the concrete floors of the property, and that AMCO improperly failed to apply depreciation to certain components of the property resulting in an overpayment of $17,984.00.

Court Discussions

The court noted that estimating depreciation and determining the damages suffered by the structural components of a building are two different areas and require different expertise. Determining structural damages requires knowledge concerning the physical properties of building components and the effect of various physical stressors on those components. Determining depreciation involves using accounting concepts and depends on the terms of the insurance contract. The court noted that the expert was qualified to determine the structural damages in question but not to determine depreciation.

Held

The court held that the structural engineering expertise differs from the expertise required to formulate a depreciation estimate. Furthermore, TAF had not demonstrated that its structural engineering expert witness was qualified to offer expert testimony on the issue of depreciation. Hence, the portion of the structural engineering expert’s testimony involving AMCO’s depreciation calculations were excluded.

About the author

Zach Barreto

Zach Barreto

Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.

Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.

At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.

Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.

Find an expert witness near you

What State is your case in?

What party are you representing?