Expert Witness Blog

In the case of Woelfle v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., No. 1:18-CV-486 (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2023), the testimony of a Power Tools Expert Witness was central to evaluating claims of product liability and negligence involving a compound miter saw that allegedly caused serious injury to the user.

Background of the Case

James Woelfle filed a personal injury lawsuit against Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., the manufacturer of a DeWalt DW716 Type 2 compound miter saw. He claimed that while using the saw, his forearm was severely lacerated due to a defective blade guard and an overall unsafe design. The incident left him with significant injuries and permanent disability.

In the case of UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement for 1.7575 Acres, 949 F.3d 825 (3d Cir. 2020), the testimony of a Pipelines Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating claims for damages associated with a natural gas pipeline easement. This case addressed the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony related to property value diminution caused by perceived risks of pipeline proximity—commonly known as “stigma damages.”

Background of the Case

UGI Sunbury LLC, a natural gas company, constructed a 35-mile pipeline in central Pennsylvania. Under the Natural Gas Act, UGI obtained the legal right to take easements by eminent domain across several privately owned parcels of land. The dispute in this case arose from one such property, where the landowners claimed that the presence of the pipeline significantly diminished the value of their land—not due to physical damage, but because of public perception and fear related to the potential danger of a high-pressure natural gas line.

In the case of Moore v. Combe Incorporated, No. 1:20-cv-01185 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2023), the testimony of a Labels & Warnings Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing whether a consumer product’s labeling sufficiently warned users about potential health risks, specifically in a lawsuit involving claims of skin depigmentation.

Background of the Case

Plaintiffs Timothy and Jean Moore sued Combe Incorporated, the manufacturer of “Just For Men Control GX Grey Reducing Shampoo,” alleging that the product caused Timothy Moore to develop vitiligo—a condition marked by patchy loss of skin pigmentation. The Moores claimed that Combe failed to provide adequate warnings about known risks linked to the shampoo’s active ingredient, p-Phenylenediamine (PPD), a chemical long associated with adverse skin reactions.

In the case of Grand Rapids-Market Place, LLC v. Viking Corporation, the testimony of a Fire Sprinkler Systems Expert Witness played a crucial role in resolving a dispute related to an unintended discharge from a fire suppression system, which caused substantial property damage.

Background of the Case

On June 25, 2019, a commercial property owned by Grand Rapids-Market Place, LLC experienced a major water loss incident when the fire sprinkler system activated without a fire present. The sprinkler system, designed and manufactured by Viking Corporation, had only recently been installed. The sudden and unanticipated discharge of water caused considerable damage to interior fixtures, flooring, merchandise, and tenant spaces.

In the case of Zahid Hotel Group, LLC v. AmGUARD Insurance Company, the testimony of an Industrial Hygiene & Mold Expert Witness played a critical role in evaluating the origin and scope of mold damage following Hurricane Ida. The case highlighted the importance of expert analysis in complex property damage disputes involving environmental and health concerns.

Background of the Case

Zahid Hotel Group, LLC, which owns and operates a LaQuinta Inn in Louisiana, filed a lawsuit against its insurer, AmGUARD Insurance Company, claiming that the insurer failed to fully compensate the business for damage sustained during Hurricane Ida in August 2021. While AmGUARD made an initial payment of approximately $1 million for building repairs and mitigation, Zahid claimed the actual damage—including structural repairs, personal property losses, and business interruption—was significantly higher.

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.