Expert Witness Blog

In the recent case of Daniel Crowder, Respondent, vs. Ingram Barge Company, LLC, Appellant, Missouri Court of Appeals 2023, the role of the Finance Expert Witness was central to the dispute over damages for impaired earning capacity following a workplace injury. This case provides a clear illustration of how courts evaluate the reliability and admissibility of expert financial testimony, and the standards applied under Missouri law.

Background and Parties

Daniel Crowder, the respondent, brought suit against Ingram Barge Company, LLC, alleging significant losses due to impaired earning capacity resulting from an incident during his employment. The central issue at trial was the quantification of Crowder’s economic losses, which required specialized financial analysis and projections. To substantiate his claims, Crowder retained Dr. Summary as a finance expert witness to testify regarding the extent and calculation of his alleged losses.

In the recent appellate decision of Duennebeil v. Paramount Financial Services, 2025 UT App 141, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the pivotal role of a Business, Financial & Marketing Expert Witness in litigation involving claims of negligence and misrepresentation by financial professionals. This case provides critical guidance on when expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care in complex investment disputes.

Background and Parties

A group of investors, including Roxanne Duennebeil and others, brought suit against Paramount Financial Services, Inc.—operating under the business name Live Abundant—its founder Douglas R. Andrew, and several licensed insurance agents. The investors alleged that the defendants introduced and recommended a real estate investment product that ultimately failed, resulting in significant financial losses. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

In the recent case of Emmons v. Jesso, 2025, the California Court of Appeal addressed complex issues surrounding residential lease disputes, landlord-tenant obligations, and the admissibility and impact of expert testimony. The role of the Leasing Expert Witness was pivotal in clarifying industry standards and lease interpretation, ultimately influencing the jury’s verdict and the court’s legal analysis.

Background and Parties

The dispute arose when a tenant leased the lower level of a Los Angeles residential property in 2015. In 2016, a new landlord acquired the property and made improvements at the tenant’s request. By 2018, the landlord sought to reclaim the unit for personal use, offering compensation for the tenant to vacate. The tenant refused, alleging harassment and asserting entitlement to substantial back rent. The situation escalated as city agencies issued and later rescinded orders regarding the unit’s legality. Despite the landlord’s efforts to resolve regulatory concerns and provide documentation, the tenant ceased rent payments, citing the unit’s alleged illegality, and remained in possession for over a year without payment. After the landlord initiated eviction proceedings and provided relocation payments, the tenant eventually vacated the premises.

In the pivotal case of Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Cooperative, South Dakota Supreme Court 2023, the role of the Agricultural Expert Witness was at the heart of the dispute over alleged herbicide damage to a stand of ponderosa pine trees. This case illustrates the indispensable function of expert testimony in agricultural litigation, particularly where causation hinges on scientific and technical knowledge beyond the ken of lay jurors.

Background and Facts

The plaintiffs, the Estate of Olsen, owned property in Spink County, South Dakota, where they operated a hunting business and maintained a significant stand of ponderosa pine trees. In October 2014, while guiding a hunting party, the Olsens’ son observed a crop duster spraying herbicide on adjacent farmland. Shortly thereafter, the Olsens noticed substantial damage and death among their pine trees, which they attributed to herbicide drift from the aerial application.

In the case of Expert Riser Solutions, LLC v. Techcrane International, LLC, 2019, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, addressed complex claims arising from alleged defects in offshore pedestal cranes. The litigation prominently featured the testimony of a Cranes Expert Witness, whose analysis and opinions were pivotal in shaping the court’s evaluation of liability and causation.

Background and Parties

Expert Riser Solutions, LLC (“ExPert”) initiated suit against Techcrane International, LLC (“Techcrane”), a manufacturer and supplier of offshore cranes, after discovering alleged defects in a crane system provided by Techcrane. ExPert claimed that the crane, installed on an offshore platform, suffered from design and manufacturing defects that rendered it unsafe and unfit for its intended use. Techcrane responded by raising exceptions, including no cause of action and prescription, arguing that ExPert’s claims were either barred by the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) or had prescribed due to untimely filing.

In the landmark case of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of New York v. Intercounty National Title Insurance Company, 412 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2005), the federal courts addressed complex issues of escrow fraud, title insurance liability, and the admissibility of expert testimony. This case involved the catastrophic disappearance of $46 million from escrow accounts insured by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, following a sophisticated scheme orchestrated by the principals of Intercounty National Title Insurance Company (INTIC).

Background and Parties

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a major title insurer, brought suit against INTIC, its principals, and related entities after discovering that funds had been systematically looted from escrow accounts under its coverage. The fraud spanned several years and involved the transfer of millions from accounts reinsured by Fidelity to those reinsured by Stewart Title Guaranty Company (STG), another title insurer. Fidelity alleged that STG was unjustly enriched, as the stolen funds replenished accounts for which STG would otherwise have been liable, thereby reducing STG’s exposure and increasing Fidelity’s losses.

In the recent case of Firmus Centro, LLC v. ATX Self-Storage, LLC, Texas Court of Appeals 2024, the role of the Self Storage Facilities Expert Witness was pivotal in resolving a complex dispute over property access, safety, and compliance with industry standards in the self-storage sector.

Background and Parties

Firmus Centro, LLC (“Firmus”) brought suit against ATX Self-Storage, LLC (“ATX”) alleging repeated violations of an Easement Agreement governing ingress and egress to the self-storage facility. Firmus claimed that ATX’s construction of loading areas shorter than required and its failure to prevent vehicles from blocking the driveway created safety hazards and breached the agreement. The dispute centered on whether ATX’s facility design and operational practices met prevailing industry standards for self-storage properties and whether these practices constituted a material breach warranting injunctive relief.

In the landmark case of First Union Nat. Bank v. Paribas, 135 F. Supp. 2d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), the Southern District of New York addressed a sophisticated international banking fraud involving multiple Middle Eastern and European financial institutions. The litigation centered on the issuance and confirmation of deferred payment letters of credit (LCs) and the subsequent discounting of these instruments by confirming banks in London, including the plaintiff, First Union National Bank.

Background and Parties

The dispute arose from a scheme orchestrated by Solo Industries Limited, a Middle Eastern corporation, which applied for deferred payment LCs from several banks in the Middle East. These LCs were issued in favor of Simetal Limited, a UK-based company, purportedly to finance Solo’s purchase of high-value non-ferrous metals and alloys. Banks in London, including First Union’s London branch, confirmed the LCs. Simetal presented the required documents to the confirming banks ahead of the maturity dates, and the banks, relying on the obligations of the issuing banks, discounted the letters and made substantial payments to Simetal.

In the federal case of Fling v. Hollywood Travel and Tours, 765 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ohio 1990), the court addressed the scope of duty owed by travel agents and tour operators to their customers, with pivotal input from a Tourism & Travel Industry Expert Witness. The case arose from a violent attack on plaintiffs Doris and William Fling during a promotional trip to the Bahamas, arranged by the defendants, Hollywood Travel and Tours and Passkey International.

Background and Parties

The plaintiffs were solicited by a campground development company to attend a sales presentation, in exchange for which they received a vacation certificate redeemable through the defendants. The defendants arranged the plaintiffs’ airfare and hotel accommodations at the Emerald Star Hotel on Grand Bahama Island. On the night of the incident, the plaintiffs were attacked while walking back to their hotel from a nearby casino.

In the recent appellate decision of Harding v. Lifetime Financial, Inc., 2025, the California Court of Appeal addressed the scope of duty owed by registered investment advisors in the context of an imposter fraud scheme, with pivotal analysis of testimony from a Financial Planning Expert Witness.

Background and Parties

Mark Frank Harding, the plaintiff, was defrauded of over $300,000 by an individual impersonating Daniel Corey Payne, an investment advisor associated with Lifetime Financial, Inc. Prior to the theft, Lifetime Financial had received multiple inquiries suggesting someone was impersonating Payne but failed to post any public warning or notify regulatory authorities. Harding, who was not a client of Lifetime Financial, sued the firm and its principals for negligence, asserting they had a duty to warn the public and report the imposter to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).