Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc.
731 F.3d 1171
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- TBW challenged pretrial rulings in a diverse-reservoir case against HDR and Barnard; Barnard settled and was later granted summary judgment based on TBW’s lenses and pockets theory and stipulated facts; HDR presented an alternative theory (collapse upon wetting) not litigated against Barnard; district court allowed HDR’s Fabre-related evidence and later denied TBW’s in limine motion to exclude HDR’s collapse upon wetting theory
- TBW alleged HDR’s design caused excess pore pressure leading to cracks; HDR argued Barnard’s construction caused collapse upon wetting due to overly thick/dry soil; TBW never asserted collapse upon wetting against Barnard during the case
- Settlement and stipulations did not adjudicate HDR’s collapse upon wetting theory; Barnard’s summary judgment resolved liability under TBW’s lenses-and-pockets theory, not HDR’s causation theory
- Pretrial rulings addressed (i) TBW’s motion to amend for second time to add post-cracking claims, (ii) HDR’s expert Bromwell’s Daubert challenge, (iii) HDR’s Fabre request against Barnard, and (iv) TBW’s in limine request to exclude HDR’s collapse upon wetting theory
- Trial proceeded with HDR’s collapse upon wetting theory; the jury returned a verdict of no liability
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HDR could present its collapse‑upon‑wetting theory against Barnard | TBW argues collateral/state estoppel bars the theory | HDR maintains the prior judgment did not adjudicate causation under that theory | No estoppel; theory not litigated or decided in Barnard summary judgment; admissible |
| Whether Dr. Bromwell’s testimony was admissible under Daubert | Bromwell’s ASTM D4767 method unreliable; should have been excluded | Method broadly reliable; credentials and extrapolation justify admission | Admissible; district court did not abuse gatekeeper discretion |
| Whether TBW properly denied leave to amend for a second time | Undue delay and prejudice; new claims should have been allowed | District court appropriately denied; amendments late and prejudicial | Affirmed; denial of leave to amend upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 904 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1990) (federal law governs preclusion in diversity actions; principal cannot be held liable when agent exonerated)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999) (federal common law governs collateral estoppel in diversity cases; state law may apply otherwise)
- Southern Bell Tel. & Telegraph Co. v. Florida Dep’t of Transportation, 668 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (collateral estoppel not purely substantive; depends on issues litigated and decided)
- Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (estoppel requirements: identical issue, actually litigated, essential to judgment, full and fair opportunity to litigate)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping for admissibility of expert testimony; reliability inquiry)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (flexible application of Daubert factors to testing methodologies)
- Joiner v. United States, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Daubert determinations)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 704 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2013) (Daubert factors; reliability of methodology as context-specific inquiry)