In the recent case of Turan v Union Modular Homes, LLC, 2025, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed critical questions of negligence and industry practice in the modular home sector, relying heavily on the testimony and analysis of a Manufactured Homes Expert Witness.
Background and Parties
The plaintiff contracted with Union Modular Homes, LLC (“Union”) to purchase and install a modular home manufactured by Westchester Modular Homes, Inc. (“Westchester”). The contract required Union to construct the foundation and site work, while Westchester was responsible for delivering and setting the modular components. The agreement included a ten-year structural warranty to be transferred to the plaintiff upon full payment.
Disputes arose when the plaintiff alleged that the modular home was improperly set on a foundation compromised by groundwater intrusion. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both Union and Westchester, focusing on Westchester’s role in setting the home on an allegedly unsuitable foundation.
Role and Methods of the Manufactured Homes Expert Witness
The litigation hinged on technical questions regarding industry standards for site preparation and the suitability of the foundation at the time of installation. The Manufactured Homes Expert Witness provided critical testimony on several fronts:
– Foundation Suitability: The expert analyzed whether the foundation, affected by groundwater and requiring additional drainage stone, met the standards for supporting modular components.
– Industry Practices: The expert evaluated whether Westchester’s actions—setting the home without a final inspection by the town building inspector and despite known groundwater issues—comported with accepted practices in the manufactured housing industry.
– Causation and Damages: The expert assessed whether any damage to the property was proximately caused by the decision to proceed with installation under these conditions.
Testimony from Westchester’s regional sales manager, Mike McLaughlin, and other technical witnesses was also considered. McLaughlin acknowledged Westchester’s responsibility to ensure the site was ready and conceded that setting a home on a water-compromised foundation would be improper.
Court’s Daubert/Reliability Analysis
The court scrutinized the reliability and sufficiency of the expert testimony under New York’s standards for admissibility. The court found that the expert’s opinions were grounded in industry manuals, contractual documents, and direct observations of the site conditions. The court emphasized that the expert’s analysis raised genuine issues of material fact regarding:
– Whether the foundation was suitable to receive the modular components on the set date.
– Whether Westchester’s decision to proceed with installation, despite unresolved groundwater issues and lack of final inspection, constituted a breach of duty.
The court specifically rejected the lower court’s attempt to resolve these factual disputes on summary judgment, noting that credibility determinations and the weighing of expert testimony are matters for trial.
Impact of the Expert Testimony on the Outcome
The Manufactured Homes Expert Witness testimony was pivotal in reversing the dismissal of the negligence claim against Westchester. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there were triable issues of fact as to both breach and proximate cause. The expert’s analysis established a factual basis for the claim that Westchester may have failed to meet industry standards by setting the home on a potentially unsuitable foundation, directly impacting the plaintiff’s property.
By allowing the negligence claim to proceed, the court underscored the essential role of expert testimony in cases involving technical questions of construction standards and causation in the manufactured homes industry. The decision illustrates how a qualified Manufactured Homes Expert Witness can shape the trajectory of litigation by providing the court with the technical foundation necessary to resolve complex factual disputes.