Expert’s ‘Judgment’ in Selecting Growth Rate Needs Proof of Guiding Principles

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 17 No. 8
Legal and Court Case Update
August 2011

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (604 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
6300 Insurance carriers
524126 Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers
economic damages & lost profits
calculating damages, expert testimony, economic damages & lost profits, forensic accounting, rule 702, growth rate, business interruption loss
Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (II)
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39285; 2011 WL 1356945
April 11, 2011
US
Federal Court
Wisconsin
United States District Court
Eric Sullivan
Adelman

Summary

Court declines to reconsider Daubert ruling, finding the expert failed to support his selection of the growth rate in lost profits calculations with reliable, guiding principles.

See Also

Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
April 11, 2011

Court declines to reconsider Daubert ruling, finding the expert failed to support his selection of the growth rate in lost profits calculations with reliable, guiding principles.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 17 No. 8
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition