Expert Witness Blog

In The Attorney-Expert Relationship: Unraveling the Complexity, Peter T. Tomaras writes on his experience as a franchising expert witness:

The attorney/expert relationship is a tricky business in that experts are employed on behalf of one litigant–but are we members of the litigation “team?” One gratifying experience was working with a local attorney on a non-compete challenge to a proposed new business. Over several months, counsel and I separately compiled evidence. We met periodically to sift and consolidate our documentation. We analyzed possible opposition arguments. To prepare me for trial, counsel simply posed questions he might ask in direct, to hear how I would respond.

Unquestionably, being in the same city facilitated communication. Although counsel never attempted to influence my perspective, we worked first in parallel, then in convergence, and our interaction felt very much like a collaboration. Strictly speaking, it was not; although experts may become personally invested in cases, attorneys should work with us not as “team members,” but as independent, unbiased contract consultants.

In Five Factors that Suggest a Case is Ripe for Mediation, bad faith expert witness Guy O. Kornblum writes:

So what types of cases are likely to settle at mediation? Here are five factors that, if present in the case, suggest it is one which should be mediated:

· There has been cooperation among the parties and their counsel during the litigation process. This is key. No doubt a case has a greater potential for settlement when the parties are “firm but fair” with one another. They cooperate without compromising their clients’ rights or position. They exchange what they know is discoverable and they diplomatically but firmly protect what is not. They prepare their client for participation in the litigation process. For example, I try not to intervene at my client’s deposition. He or she is prepared to tell the story, and tell it truthfully. I don’t need to make inappropriate speaking objections or interfere with my opponent’s questioning unless counsel is violating the rules, being rude, harassing my client, or asking questions about irrelevant or privileged matters. Then, rather than arguing on the record and creating useless transcripts, I state my position and deal with this bad behavior appropriately as the rules permit. But, if we are conducting the case within and in accordance with the rules, the prospective of a cooperative discussion about resolution is highly likely.

In Negotiating and Settling Insurance Bad Faith Cases , insurance expert witness Guy O. Kornblum of GK Consultants, LLC, writes:

Many types of property and casualty policies contain both first and third-party coverage. For example, an auto policy which protects the insured against the risk of property damage to its vehicle, may also provide for medical expense coverage (called medical payments coverage), and normally contains uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The latter allows the insured to bring a claim against its own insurer if the insured is the victim of an accident in which the offending driver’s vehicle has no insurance or the applicable liability insurance limits are insufficient to compensate the insured for the injuries suffered in the accident. Unreasonable conduct in the processing or handling of these claims may expose an insurer to a “bad faith” claim.

The focus of a third-party case is on the insurer’s refusal to settle a claim or lawsuit against its insured within the limits of liability of the insurance policy and a judgment in excess of the liability limits results from a trial. As a result, the insured’s personal assets are exposed because of the insurer’s failure to settle within the framework of the liability protection when it was prudent to do so.

In The Attorney-Expert Relationship: Unraveling the Complexity, Peter T. Tomaras writes on his experience as a franchising expert witness:

Timing and Duration

Too frequently, attorneys seek expert consultation after substantially completing discovery–almost as an afterthought, as though attorney or client decide that a credible objective opinion might add weight to their arguments. Invariably, this results in the urgent need call: “We’ll overnight the discovery, but we need your feedback by next Friday latest.” It’s not unusual for the expert to accept the challenge, only to hear nothing more for months.

In Five Factors that Suggest a Case is Ripe for Mediation, bad faith expert witness Guy O. Kornblum writes:

Anyone who has been involved in the dispute-resolution mechanism knows it can be a laborious and often mysterious process. Somewhat over simplified, here is a good way to remove some of the labor and mystery, and describe how mediation fits into the system: Mediation allows the parties involved in the dispute to sidestep the litigation process, while also getting results. Because of the mediator’s neutrality, the settlement resolution is more likely to be perceived as just. It is a voluntary, non-binding forum in which the parties agree to conduct negotiations using a neutral intermediary who guides the parties through the legal process. The mediator has no decision-making authority. Rather, it is the mediator’s duty to work with the parties to agree on the terms for conflict resolution. Only if they want to do the parties settle.

So what types of cases are likely to settle at mediation? Here are five factors that, if present in the case, suggest it is one which should be mediated:

In Negotiating and Settling Insurance Bad Faith Cases , insurance expert witness Guy O. Kornblum of GK Consultants, LLC, writes:

The potential exposure to punitive or exemplary damages is the greatest danger to an insurer defending an extra-contractual claim. For example, courts have allowed the recovery of punitive damages when the insurer’s breach is accompanied by an independent tort or where a serious wrong of a tortious nature has been committed and the public interest would be served by the deterrent effect of punitive damages.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES Insurance bad faith cases fall primarily into two categories: first-party and third-party cases. First-party cases evolve from coverage in which the insurance company is obligated to indemnify or reimburse its insured directly. Third-party cases involve underlying claims which trigger an insurer’s obligations to protect an insured against lawsuits by others. It involves the basic obligations of the insurer to defend and indemnify the insured, and to settle such cases when a reasonable opportunity to do so is presented. The right to coverage is triggered by strangers to the insurance relationship who bring a suit against the insured. It draws on traditional tort concepts of fault, proximate cause and duty. “In liability insurance, by ensuring personal liability, and agreeing to cover the insured for his own negligence, the insurer agrees to cover the insured for a broader spectrum of risks.”