Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">Experts reports and opinions are paramount in proving a party’s theory of the case.  In <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/State-Auto-v.-Kim-Eagan-Woods.pdf">State Auto v. Kim Eagan Woods</a><a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1561011084PA190728/?download=190728.pdf"></a>,</em> the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed a situation where a Defendant-Insured moved for summary judgment against a Plaintiff-Insurer over an apartment fire. Defendant's apartment was insured by the plaintiff and was damaged by fire.  Plaintiff, relying on its expert's report, asserted the fire was started by defendant's negligently lit cigarette and commenced a declaratory judgment action.  Defendant argued the fire was caused by a lamp, and further that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim.  However, defendant did not retain an expert to support her contention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff’s expert reviewed the evidence supplied in the case and conducted an examination of the scene of the fire. The expert determined that the fire was caused by a negligently lit cigarette, noting a lighter and ten empty cigarette packs in the apartment.  He determined that, although the wire of the lamp showed fire damage, it was not the cause of the fire.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Subsequently, the defendant moved for summary judgment.  In analyzing the motion, the Court found that the plaintiff’s expert report, and other supporting evidence, set forth a <em>prima facie</em> case of negligence sufficient to survive summary judgment.  Importantly, the Court noted that the defendant did not move to exclude the expert report or preclude the expert's testimony in her motion.  The Court further noted that even if the defendant had moved to exclude the expert’s testimony, the judge would not have granted it because of the wealth of support for the expert’s opinion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In most cases, all parties to a case will retain an expert who will conduct a review of the evidence/location of interest and author a report that supports the respective party’s theory of the case.  Here, the defendant moved for summary judgment based on a lack of evidence to support the plaintiff’s case.  Crucially, the defendant failed to retain an expert to support her theory of the case.  The Court was, thus, faced with a situation where a layman’s theory of the case was pitted against that of an expert.  As such, this case exemplifies the importance of retaining an expert when a case involves technical issues, especially if the opposing party has already obtained an expert.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thank you to Malik Pickett for his contribution to this post.  Please email <a href="mailto:chayes@wcmlaw.com">Colleen E. Hayes</a> with any questions.</p>