An insurance company's challenge both to a policyholder's expert's qualifications and testimony was rejected in a revealing appellate decision in McEwing v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 PA Super. 171, 77 A.3d 639 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
The expert "was qualified and admitted, without objection, as a professional engineer and a certified construction inspector with respect to residential homes." The expert testified to the cause of a policyholder's claimed loss as a result of the collapse of her "home's supporting joint system":
- The expert inspected the damage to the home's interior.
- The expert inspected the crawlspace beneath the home. There he observed that although broken joists had been replaced, "parts of the remaining joists were still rotted."
- The expert took photographs to document his inspection.
- His personal inspection came after repairs were made, as noted. Therefore the expert "also reviewed photographs that had been taken before the repairs had been made".
- The expert interviewed the policyholder's son-in-law who was assisting the policyholder in presenting the facts of her insurance claim, "about the extent of the damage and the temporary repairs."
Against this background of facts, the appellate court rejected the insurance company's challenge to the expert's qualifications and testimony. The appellate court observed at one point:
We do not see how [the expert's] failure to inspect the home's attic or roof prevented him from determining how the home's supporting joint system collapsed.
McEwing v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 PA Super. 171, 77 A.3d 639, 650 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). [Emphasis added.]
At another point, the appellate court also rejected the insurance company's objection that the expert's conclusions should have been ruled inadmissible in that they were based 'only' on personal experience and personal observations:
We find no support for [the insurance company's] broad claim that [the expert] was required to use specialized equipment and make specific citations to a building code to support his claim.
McEwing v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 PA Super. 171, 77 A.3d 639, 650 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
Perfection is not required. The experience and personal observation of a causation expert were enough to support the admission of the expert's testimony in this insurance coverage case. Parenthetically, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 703 governed the outcome here. It is reasonable to assume that Federal Rule of Evidence 703 upon which the Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence is based, would lead to a similar outcome.
© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to original U.S. Government works.
Please Read The Disclaimer.