In last week’s issue, we reported on a damages case in which a valuation expert’s testimony was excluded because of the methodology used in the analysis. In this week’s case (also a damages matter), the expert didn’t even get that far before being excluded.

Stopped short: In an Illinois breach of warranty action, some industrial equipment the plaintiff purchased did not function as it should have and the supplier was unable or unwilling to fix the problems. The plaintiff engaged a certified fraud examiner to calculate the damages, but the expert had no experience or knowledge in valuing industrial equipment. The plaintiff did not show that the expert was qualified, so the defendant’s motion to exclude the expert’s testimony under FRE 702 and Daubert was granted.

The court noted that, even if the expert were qualified, the method he used to estimate damages lacked “any of the usual indicia of reliability that courts typically consider.”

The case is Motobilt, Inc. v. Bystronic, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2667; __ F.Supp.3d __, and a case analysis and the full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.