McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co.
64 So. 3d 926
| Miss. | 2011Background
- McKees contracted with Ellington Homes in 1998 for a lakefront home and were directed to Bowers Window to select windows; they chose Weather Shield wooden windows after being warned that wood requires maintenance.
- Weather Shield designed the windows; installation was done by Ellington Homes or its subcontractors, with no involvement from Weather Shield or Bowers Window.
- After moving in Aug. 1999, the McKees experienced leaks and water intrusion; by spring 2002 the wooden windows were rotting, prompting extensive reconstruction of the home.
- In Sept. 2002, the McKees sued Ellington Homes, Weather Shield, and Bowers Window, alleging defective product due to leaking; Weather Shield and Bowers Window moved for summary judgment after the trial court excluded the McKees’ expert Birdsong.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Weather Shield and Bowers Window; the McKees appealed, challenging the exclusion of Birdsong and both summary judgments; the appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion excluding Birdsong as an expert | Birdsong qualified by experience as a general contractor and could testify on window suitability | Birdsong lacked window-specific expertise and reliability; exclusion proper | No abuse of discretion; Birdsong excluded, and testimony would be unreliable |
| Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for Weather Shield | There were genuine issues about design defect and causation | Wood rot is an inherent characteristic; no defect left Weather Shield's control | Summary judgment for Weather Shield affirmed |
| Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for Bowers Window | Sale of windows implicated defective design or negligence | No control over design; misalignment with MS design and negligence standards | Summary judgment for Bowers Window affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilhullen v. Kansas City S. Ry., 8 So.3d 168 (Miss. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for trial court decisions on expert testimony)
- McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2002) (gatekeeping and reliability of expert testimony under Daubert/Kumho framework)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (admissibility depends on reliability of methodology, not conclusions)
- Hubbard v. McDonald’s Corp., 41 So.3d 670 (Miss. 2010) (reliability standards for expert testimony; no speculation allowed)
- Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., Inc., 935 So.2d 393 (Miss. 2006) (summary judgment and expert testimony standards support exclusion of speculative opinions)
- Gulf South Pipeline, Co. v. Pitre, 35 So.3d 494 (Miss. 2010) (mere speculation insufficient for admissible design-defect claim)