Russell v. Allianze Life Ins. Co. of N.A.
Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.
Court Emphasizes Benefit of Hindsight in Evaluating Loss Period
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Appeals court affirms Daubert exclusion of plaintiff's damages expert because she analyzed the wrong problem and her conclusion did not assist the trier of fact; also, her economic model and regression analysis failed to measure “effect of the violation.”
Expert’s Tax Appraisal Weathers Frontal Daubert Attack
Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.
Court Trusts Process to Test Expert’s Calculation of Value
Calculation reports periodically become a point of contention in litigation in trial and appeals courts. Courts have responded in different ways to questions about their usefulness and reliability. A recent case explores the issue of whether expert testimony based on a calculation of value is admissible under Daubert. Prior to marriage, the husband founded a company that marketed and sold Steel Seal, a car repair product that sealed blown head gaskets. The company ...
Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Use of Reliable Method Does Not Assure Admissibility
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
A Time Limit on Use of Destruction of Business Method?
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (I)
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Forecast’s Assumption Imperils Conjoined Expert Opinions
In breach of contract suit, court strikes expert’s revenue forecasts, using Monte Carlo simulation, finding key assumption resulted from expert’s misreading of contract; court also strikes second expert’s valuation resting on inadmissible forecasts.
B & L Development LLC v. City of Norton Shores
Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.
Hipple v. SCIX, LLC
Trial court finds plaintiff expert’s testimony based on a calculation of value instead of a full appraisal is admissible under Daubert because it is a form of engagements approved by the AICPA and the expert explained his methodology and assumptions.
LightLab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Technologies, Inc.
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
Lost Value Opinion Using Untested Data Points Is No Go
Court excludes lost value opinion from expert who was versed in business valuation, but unfamiliar with scientific damages methodologies and did not test reliability of sources providing data points for damages calculations.
Court Admits Solvency Analysis Lacking Specific Valuation of Debtor
Court finds solvency analysis is not subject to AICPA’s valuation standards and admits expert’s claim that “magnitude of excess” reflected in adjusted balance sheet numbers means assets exceeded liabilities.
‘Stand-Alone’ Lost Profits Claim Sinks, as Does Expert Opinion
In lost licensing opportunity suit, court excludes damages opinion where expert failed to vet assumptions in plaintiff’s business plan; issue is to determine market value of loss not lost profits as such.
Abandoning ‘Classic Way’ to Royalty Analysis, Expert Gets Lost
Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.
Dominion Liquid Technologies, LLC v. GT Beverage Co., LLC
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
MacDermid Printing Solutions, Inc. v Cortron Corp.
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.