891 F. Supp. 2d 1364
M.D. Ga.2012Background
- Goodrich sues SWWC over a standpipe flood on Goodrich's 325 Goodrich Ave property causing extensive hardwood floor damage.
- SWWC moves for summary judgment on nuisance, trespass causation, damages, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages; Goodrich moves to exclude Gates and Shmulsky opinions.
- The flood occurred October 8, 2010; SWWC allegedly turned on a valve causing water flow; Molenkamp coordinated response with SWWC after notification by Goodrich employees.
- Goodrich salvaged some wood; Building B was demolished in November 2009; Building A damage involves hardwood floors; various experts were engaged by Faraday for assessment.
- Court awards partial summary judgment for SWWC on some claims and limits damages to diminution in value; nuisance treated as negligence in substance; causation and some damages remain for trial.
- Gates’ testimony on reclaimed wood valuation and insurance provisions is excluded; Dr. Shmulsky’s opinions limited to certain findings; spoliation sanctions are denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Goodrich’s nuisance claim viable or should it be read as negligence? | Goodrich asserts nuisance as pleaded; can be negligence in substance. | Nuisance fails as pleaded; damages based on negligence issues. | Nuisance dismissed; negligence framing adopted |
| What is the proper causation standard and is there a genuine issue for trial on causation of the Flood? | Molenkamp's testimony supports causation by SWWC. | Causation should be limited; disputes shown by testimony gaps. | Genuine issue of material fact on proximate causation remains |
| What damages are recoverable for Building A and Building B? | Damages include replacement costs and lost profits where applicable. | Damages limited to diminution in value; replacement costs and lost profits largely disallowed. | Damages limited to diminution in value for both buildings; replacement costs and lost profits denied |
| Should spoliation sanctions apply for demolition of Building B before inspection? | Destruction hindered SWWC’s ability to assess damages. | Demolition occurred in ordinary course; no bad-faith spoliation. | Spoliation sanctions rejected; no sanctions imposed |
| Are Dr. Shmulsky and Gates' testimonies properly admissible and to what extent? | Dr. Shmulsky opinions are necessary; Gates testimony should be excluded. | Challenge to Shmulsky's causation and damages; Gates improper expert testimony. | Shmulsky opinions 1, 2, 3, and 5 admitted; replacement-cost opinions moot; Gates testimony on valuation and co-insurance excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Van T. Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1984) (contradictory affidavits cannot create genuine issues after clear testimony)
- Shirey v. L. & N.R. Co., 327 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1964) (pure speculation defeats proximate causation at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting for summary judgment; burden on moving party)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (pretrial burden of proof; credibility issues go to jury)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) ( Daubert applicability to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Frazier v. United States, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (test for helpfulness and relevance of expert testimony)