Turubchuk v. E.T. Simonds Construction Company
3:12-cv-00594
S.D. Ill.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sued ETS and SIAC for negligence arising from a 2005 single-vehicle rollover in a highway repaving construction zone, alleging improper paving/edge drop-off caused the crash.
- At the time of the accident the defendants had a joint-policy through Bituminous Insurance Company plus additional individual policies that were not disclosed in initial Rule 26 disclosures.
- Plaintiffs claim they made a $1,000,000 policy-limits demand in 2007 after being told only the Bituminous policy applied; they later settled the underlying case.
- Six years later Plaintiffs sued the defendants for failure to disclose the individual insurance policies, alleging misrepresentation and concealment caused a detrimental settlement.
- Defendants offered G. Patrick Murphy (attorney and former federal judge) as an expert; Murphy submitted a supplemental report opining on liability and the settlement value that would have prevailed had individual insurers been disclosed.
- Plaintiffs moved to strike Murphy’s supplemental report and bar his testimony as unreliable, speculative, and containing impermissible legal conclusions; the Court granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Murphy’s supplemental expert opinions under Rule 702/Daubert | Murphy’s report lacks methodology, factual basis, and is speculative | Murphy relies on experience and legal background to opine on settlement value and causation | Struck: report inadmissible for lack of explained methodology and reliable application of experience |
| Whether Murphy may offer legal conclusions (liability/proximate cause/res judicata) | Such statements are legal conclusions and beyond expert scope | Murphy treated these as expert opinions based on case law and facts | Struck: legal conclusions excluded; experts cannot usurp court on law or outcome-determinative issues |
| Reliability of experience-based opinion on settlement value and insurer behavior | Murphy failed to tie specific experience or analytic steps to his bottom-line valuation or insurer response | Murphy asserts his experience is the basis for his opinion and estimates defense costs ~ $300,000 | Struck: experience alone insufficient without explanation linking experience to conclusions |
| Use of evidence previously ruled inadmissible | Plaintiffs contend Murphy relies on inadmissible material | Defendants argue opinions rely on facts reasonably available at time of settlement | Court found reliance on inadmissible matters and lack of methodological ties undermined admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial courts act as gatekeepers for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, including experience-based)
- Gen. Elec. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (court may reject expert opinions not linked to existing data)
- Zenith Elec. Corp. v. WH-T Broad. Corp., 395 F.3d 416 (experts cannot offer mere bottom-line conclusions)
- U.S. v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (expert must explain how experience supports conclusions)
- Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824 (expert must tie experience to conclusions and application to facts)
- United States v. Mamah, 332 F.3d 475 (need link between facts/data and expert conclusion)
- Bammerlin v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 30 F.3d 898 (experts must not offer legal conclusions)
- Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of Momence, 323 F.3d 557 (expert legal-conclusion testimony that determines outcome is inadmissible)
- Chapman v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682 (expert testimony must be grounded in reliable methods)