Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In the case of SFR Services, LLC v. American Coastal Insurance Company, No. 2:22-cv-505 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2025), the testimony of a Forensic Engineering Expert Witness played a pivotal role in determining the cause and extent of property damage following Hurricane Irma. The case illustrates how expert analysis, even when based on virtual inspection, can meet legal standards of admissibility under federal law.

Background of the Case

SFR Services, LLC filed a lawsuit against American Coastal Insurance Company (ACIC) for failing to pay for damage caused to a property during Hurricane Irma. SFR, acting as the contractor and assignee of the insured, alleged that the insurer breached its obligations under the policy by denying or underpaying for covered losses.

In the case of Secretary of Labor v. Adamo Demolition Company, the testimony of a Demolition Expert Witness was pivotal in assessing industry safety standards, demolition procedures, and regulatory compliance following a structural collapse during a planned demolition project.

Background of the Case

In 2023, Adamo Demolition Company was contracted to demolish the Killen Generating Station in Manchester, Ohio. The project involved an implosion of the power station’s boiler unit, a highly complex and risky operation that required precise planning, engineering assessments, and safety precautions. During the demolition preparation phase, a premature and unplanned structural collapse occurred, raising immediate safety concerns and triggering an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

In the case of Expert Roofing, Inc. v. Gerambia, 2024 Ill. App. 2d 230256, the testimony of a Roofing Expert Witness was pivotal in assessing the quality of roofing work performed and determining adherence to contractual obligations in a residential roofing dispute.

Background of the Case

Expert Roofing, Inc. entered into a contract with Steve and Natalie Gerambia to replace the roof on their home. The contract specified that the work would be completed for the amount covered by the Gerambias’ insurance policy, plus any approved supplements. After the roof was installed, the Gerambias became dissatisfied with the workmanship and refused to pay the full amount due under the agreement.

In the case of Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court of Alameda County, No. A155119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019), the role of a Construction Safety Expert Witness was central to litigation involving a serious workplace injury on a construction site. The appellate decision focused on the procedural rules governing expert witness designations and had important implications for construction safety litigation in California.

Background of the Case

In 2015, Mark Krein, an employee of the Tuolumne Water District, was severely injured after falling from a bridge at his workplace when the structure unexpectedly gave way. As a result of the fall, Krein suffered permanent paraplegia. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against several defendants, including engineers, general contractors, and safety consultants who had participated in the design, inspection, or oversight of the project.

In the case of Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. v. Howard Industries, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00179 (S.D. Miss. 2019), the testimony of a Utilities Expert Witness was central to addressing allegations of product defects and evaluating the performance and reliability of electrical transformers supplied to a utility company.

Background of the Case

Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), a utility provider based in the Cayman Islands, brought a lawsuit against Howard Industries, Inc., a U.S.-based manufacturer of electrical transformers. CUC alleged that several transformers provided by Howard were defective and failed prematurely, causing substantial operational disruptions and financial damages. The key legal questions centered on whether the transformers were defective due to manufacturing errors or failed due to conditions outside the manufacturer’s control.

In the case of National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Smith, 368 Ga. App. 18 (2023), the testimony of an Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness was central to evaluating the standard of care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and the adequacy of their training protocols in response to a 911 call.

Background of the Case

The estate of a deceased individual, referred to as Smith, brought a negligence action against National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. (National EMS). The suit alleged that EMS personnel failed to take adequate steps to locate and assist Smith during a critical medical event, despite a 911 call requesting emergency care.

In the case of Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996), the testimony of a Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in the industrial manufacturing sector.

Background of the Case

Gates Rubber Company, a leader in the development and production of industrial belts and related products, filed a lawsuit against Bando Chemical Industries, a competing manufacturer, along with several former Gates employees. The lawsuit alleged that Bando and the employees misappropriated Gates’ proprietary materials and software related to the design and production of industrial belts.

In the case of Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00894 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 2022), the testimony of a Hazardous Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing claims of environmental contamination and evaluating the scientific reliability of expert methodologies in a hazardous materials dispute.

Background of the Case

Courtland Company filed a lawsuit against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), claiming that operations at UCC’s facility led to the release and migration of hazardous substances onto Courtland’s adjacent property. Courtland alleged that these contaminants, including heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diminished the value of their property and posed environmental and health risks. The suit included claims of negligence, trespass, and violations of federal environmental laws.