Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to a claim of asbestos exposure. Plaintiff hired a Marine Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
Facts: This case (Evans et al v. Alfa Laval Inc. et al – United States District Court – United States District Court – District of Delaware – July 19th, 2019) involves a claim of asbestos exposure. The plaintiff alleges that he developed mesothelioma due to his exposure to asbestos-containing products when he was employed as a fireman a boiler tender with the U.S. Navy. The plaintiff hired Marine Engineering Expert Witness Captain Arnold Moore to provide testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The defendant alleges that Captain Moore should not be allowed to testify about the Navy’s purchase of the products at issue because he is not an expert on the subject and he doesn’t have the expertise to interpret the relevant documents in the case. Specifically, the defendant has an issue with Captain Moore’s reliance on the Qualified Product List as evidence of the products used aboard ships on which the plaintiff served.
The court opines that the defendant’s motion to exclude Captain Moore’s testimony about the Navy’s purchase of the products at issue is denied. The court notes that Captain Moore’s lack of direct experience in ordering parts does not disqualify him from testifying on the subject as he was familiar with this process as a result of his participation in hundreds of meetings to discuss procurement issues. The court notes that any arguments on this issue go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.
The court also opines that Captain Moore’s supplementation and amendment of his expert report based on information he received after submitting his expert report does not disqualify him from testifying in this case. In addition, Captain Moore’s lack of direct experience with the QPL during his Navy service does not disqualify him from testifying as an expert on the maintenance practices and conditions aboard Navy ships.
Also, the defendant would like the court to preclude Captain Moore from testifying that the defendant was required to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, because his experience does not extend to this topic. The court grants this part of the motion regarding the Navy warning requirements.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Captain Arnold Moore is granted in part and denied in part.