Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC v. Harrison, 2021-NCCOA-27, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed the necessity of expert testimony in construction defect disputes, particularly those involving allegations of substandard workmanship in plumbing and HVAC installations.
Background of the Case
Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC (Dan King) entered into two contracts with homeowner Harrison to perform plumbing and HVAC work on Harrison’s property. After the work was completed, Dan King sought payment under the terms of the agreement. Harrison refused to pay the full balance, alleging that the work was incomplete or defective. Dan King then filed suit for breach of contract to recover the unpaid portion, and Harrison counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract due to faulty workmanship.
The core of the dispute centered on whether Dan King’s work met professional and contractual standards—a determination that typically requires expert analysis when the work involves technical trades such as plumbing and HVAC systems.
Role of the Plumbing & HVAC Expert Witness
In construction litigation of this nature, a Plumbing & HVAC Expert Witness plays a crucial role in evaluating the quality of work and assessing whether it aligns with applicable codes, manufacturer guidelines, and industry standards. Such experts are often responsible for:
-
Conducting inspections of plumbing and HVAC systems to identify any deficiencies or code violations.
-
Reviewing contract documents and construction records to assess compliance with agreed scope and standards.
-
Providing professional opinions as to whether the work was performed competently and safely.
-
Offering testimony in court to help judges or juries understand technical aspects of the construction work.
In this case, Harrison did not present any Plumbing & HVAC Expert Witness to support the claim that the work was substandard or breached applicable industry standards.
Court Proceedings and Findings
At the trial court level, Harrison relied on personal testimony and photographic evidence to argue that Dan King’s work was not done properly. Dan King moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Harrison’s failure to provide expert testimony meant there was no competent evidence to support a claim of defective work. The trial court denied the motion and allowed the case to go to the jury, which ultimately awarded damages in Harrison’s favor.
Dan King appealed, asserting that expert testimony was required for the jury to determine whether the plumbing and HVAC work had been done negligently or not in compliance with industry standards.
Appellate Court Decision
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court held that in construction defect cases involving technical services such as plumbing and HVAC, expert testimony is necessary unless the alleged defects are so obvious that a layperson could readily identify them without specialized knowledge.
The court rejected the notion that Harrison’s lay observations and photographs were sufficient to establish that Dan King’s work fell below a professional standard. The court emphasized that in the absence of expert guidance, a jury cannot properly evaluate complex claims regarding technical workmanship or adherence to building codes.
Because Harrison had failed to present expert evidence and the alleged defects were not within the “common knowledge” exception, the appellate court reversed the jury’s verdict and entered judgment in favor of Dan King.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces the essential role of expert testimony in construction defect litigation. It highlights that even in residential cases, plaintiffs must meet a high evidentiary standard when alleging professional negligence. Without testimony from a qualified expert in plumbing and HVAC systems, a claim of substandard work is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny—especially if the alleged defects are not visually obvious or involve nuanced code compliance.
Conclusion
Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC v. Harrison is a clear example of the importance of involving a Plumbing & HVAC Expert Witness in construction disputes. The case shows that expert analysis is not only helpful but often legally required when evaluating whether work in complex systems like HVAC and plumbing meets industry standards. The appellate ruling serves as a caution for future litigants: expert testimony can be the difference between winning and losing a construction-related lawsuit.