I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 1 3 1 4 - S CT M . CURTI S SM CKEE A ND ANN

CRAFT M CKEE
v. BOW ERSW I NDO W & D OOR COM

PANY, I NC. AN D W EA T HER S HI EL D M AN UF AC T UR I

NG, I NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 01/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : DENNI S L. HORN S HI RL E Y P AYNE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J . W ADE S W E AT M AR I S A C AM P BE L L AT KI NS ON TI M OTH Y D ALE C RA W LEY M I T Z I L E AS HA GE OR GE NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 21/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 1 3 1 5 - S CT M . CURTI S SM CKEE A ND ANN

CRAFT M CKEE
v. W EAT HER SHI

ELD M ANUFACTURI

NG, I NC. AND BOW

ERSW I NDO W & D OOR COM

PANY, I NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 06/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT

### 2

ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : DENNI S L. HORN S HI RL E Y P AYNE ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : TI M OTH Y D ALE C RA W LEY M I T Z I L E AS HA GE OR GE J . W ADE S W E AT M AR I S A C AM P BE L L AT KI NS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 21/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. In 199 8, the M cK ees en t ered i nto a ho m e-construct i on con t actw i th E l l i ng t on H om es, I nc. ( “El l i ngt on H om es ”)
. T her eaf t er , the pr es i dentof

E l l i ngt on H om es i ns truct ed the M c Ke e s t o l o o k a twi n d o ws a tBo we r s W i n d o w & Do o rCo
. , I n c . ( “ Bo we r s W i n d o w” )
. At B ow er s W i ndow , a s al es m an s how ed the M cK ees va r i ous types of w i ndow s . A nn M cK ee t old him thats he pr ef

err ed w ooden w i ndow s . T he s al es m an ca ut i oned the M cK ees t hat
w ooden w i ndow s w ou l d need t o be mai nt ai ned bec aus e “w ood r ot s . . . . ” U l t i m at el y, t he M c K e e s s e lec ted w o o d e n w in d o w s d e sig n e d a n d m a n u fa c tu re d b y W e a th e r S h ield M an u fac turi n g , Inc . (“W ea ther S h iel d ”). ¶2. T he w i ndow s w er e i ns t al l ed by ei ther E l l i ngt on H om es or i t s s ubcontr act or s , w i th no i nv ol ve mentb y e i the rBow e r s W i nd ow orW e a the rSh i e l d. I n A ug us t1 99 9, t he M cK ees
m oved i nt o thei rnew , l akef r onthom e. Soon ther eaf t er , the M cK ees exper i ence d a mul t i tude of pr obl ems r el at ed t o construct i on, i ncl udi ng l eaki ng w i ndow s . B y t he spr i ng of 2002, the
w ooden w i ndow s w er e r ot t i ng. Subse quent l y, the home underw enta s i gni f i cant reconstruct i on t o rem edy i t s vari ou s probl em s.

### Th e McK ees hav e since entered into a settlement withEllin gto n H omes. 1 

### 3 ¶3. I n Sept ember2002, the M cK ees f i l ed s ui ta gai ns tEl l i ngt on H om es , W eather Shi el d, 1
a n d B o w e rs W in d o w . W h ile a c k n o w led g in g th a t th e h o m e h a d m u lti p le p ro b lem s w h ich d id notpe r t a i n t o e i the rW e a the rShi e l d o rBow e r s W i nd ow, the M c K e e s a l l e ge d tha tt he
w ind o w m an u fac turer an d the w ind o w sell er w ere li ab le be ca u se th e w o o d en w ind o w s w ere

“ a d e fe c tiv e p ro d u c t in th a t th e y h a v e l e a k e d e v e r s in c e th e y w e re p la c e d in th e h o u s e .” A ft er the cir cuitcou rtenter ed a p retri al order excl ud i ng exp ertt est i m o n y b y the M cK ees’ des i gn at ed exper tr egar di ng the def ect i venes s of

the w i ndow s , both W eatherShi el d and B ow er s W i ndow f

i l ed “M ot i ons f

orSum m ary J udgm ent . ” Fol l ow i ng s epar at e hea r i ngs , t he
c i r c u i tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a r y j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f W e a th e rS h i e l d a n d Bo we r s W i n d o w. FACTS ¶ 4
. O n A u g u s t 2 8 , 1 9 9 8 , th e M c K e e s e n ter e d in to a h o m e -c o n stru c tio n c o n tra c t w ith E lli n g to n H o m e s. T h e re a fte r, ac c o rd in g to A n n M c K e e , th e s o le p ro p rie to r o f a re a lty company, the M cK ees w er e i ns truct ed by J ames R . E l l i ng t on, the pr es i dentof E l l i ngt on H om es , “t o go and l ook atw i ndow s atB ow er s [ W i ndow ]
. ” T he depos i t i on t es t i m ony of A nn M cK ee pr ovi ded thatthe s al es m an atB ow er s W i ndow , M ark M cK ee ( no r el at i on) , di d not
re c o m m e n d p a rt ic u la r w in d o w s , b u t in s te a d “ ju s t d is c u s s e d d if

fe re n t w in d o w s a n d
. . . w i nd ow surf

ace . . . . ” M ark M cK ee show ed the M cK ees v ariou s t yp es of w i nd ow s, in c lu d in g v in y l, m e tal, a n d w o o d e n w in d o w s. A c c o rd in g to A n n M c K e e , “ I p ro b a b ly sa id thatw e had c om e f

r om a hous e t hat had w ood w i ndow s , and I l i ke d wo o d wi n d o ws .” ( E m phas i s added. ) T his w as corr obor at ed by the depos i t i on t es t i m ony of C ur t i s s M cK ee,

### No evid ence w as adducedthat B ow ers Win do w alteredor mo difiedthe w ind ow s in 2 

### anyfashio n. B o w e rs W in d o w a lso o ffe re d e v id e n c e th a t itw a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e a ss e m b ly of the w i nd ow s order ed b y the M cK ees. 

### 4 w h ic h p ro v id e d th a t “ I th in k A n n s a id th a t s h e li k e d w o o d , th a t th e m e ta l w a s n ’t a s p re tty .” A c c o rd in g to A n n M c K e e , the sa les m a n re sp o n d e d “ th a t if w e w a n ted w o o d , w e ’d h a v e to
m ai nt ai n t he m bec a us e w oo d r ot s , a nd
. . . I r e membe rs a yi ng , ‘ Y e s , w e ’ ve ha d wood
w in d o w s, a n d w e m a in tain th e m .’” W h ile A n n M c K e e c o u ld n o t re c a ll h o w th e sp e c ific
w indow s w ere sel ect ed, C urt i ss M cK ee st at ed t hat the M cK ees w ere i nform ed b y M ark M c K e e th a t th e W e a th e r S h ie ld w in d o w s w h ic h w e re s e le c te d w e re “ to p o f t h e lin e .” ¶5 . T h e w o o d en w ind o w s w ere d esig n ed an d m an u fac tured b y W ea ther S h ield a n d , in De c e mb e r1 9 9 8 a n d J a n u a r y 1 9 9 9 , we r e d e l i v e r e d t o B o we r s W i n d o w. L a t e r , th e wi n d o ws 2
w e re tra n sp o rte d to th e co n stru c tio n site w h e re , a c c o rd in g to A n n M c K e e , the y w e re “ sa fe ly
s t or ed outof

the w eatheri n the hous e gar age. ” The i ns t al l at i on of the w i ndow s w as per f or m ed by ei therE l l i ngt on H om es orone of i t s s ubcontr act or s , w i th no i nvol vementby
e i th e rW e a th e rS h i e l d o rBo we r s W i n d o w. T h e Mc Ke e s we r e n o tp r e s e n twh e n th e wi n d o ws
w er e i ns t al l ed. ¶6. O n ora boutA ugus t20, 1999, the M cK ees be gan res i ding i n the l akefr ont hom e. A ccor di ng t o A nn M cK ee, f ol l ow i ng “the f

i r s tr eal l y heavy r ai n, w e had w at erthatw entf r om the w i ndow nearC ur t i s s ’ s des k ar ea . . . . W e w er e s t andi ng i n w at er . ” O verthe nexts ever al
m onths , the M cK ees cl ai m ed thatthe w i ndow s had l eake d w heneve ri tr ai ned, and that E l l i ngt on H om es r epea t edl y had s entempl oyees t o i ns pectt he w i ndow s . A ccor di ng t o A nn M cK ee, E l l i ngt on i ni t i al l y bel i eved the pr obl em w as the caul ki ng a nd the rubbers eal s , t hen fi nall y inf

orm ed the M cK ees that he had no fur ther sol uti on s.

### Exte ri or Insul ation and Fini shing Syst em , a synthetic st

ucc o. 3 

### Th e wo od en w ind ow s were rep laced w ith metal-cladwin do ws. 4 

### Ste wart c ould not

det er mine i f the windows ha d bee n painte d wi thin s ix mont hs of 5 

### ini ti alins ta ll ation. Had thi s not occ urr ed, Stewart state d that

rot wa s a nat ura l c onse quenc e. No evi denc e wa s of

fe re d that t

he windows ha d been painte d. Si m i l ar l y, C ur t i s s M cK ee s t at ed thatcarpent er s i nf orm ed hi m dur i ng t he 6 rec o n stru cti o n “tha t th e flash ing w as inad e q u ate o r w as n o t th ere . . . , that the w ind o w s w ere n o t in s ta lle d c o rr e c tly .” 

### 5 ¶7. I n the s pr i ng of 2002, t he M cK ees cont act ed B i l l B i r ds ong, J r . , t o vi ew thei rhom e and det erm i ne i f

i tneede d t o be pai nt ed orpr es s ur e- w as hed. B i r ds ong obs erved the tr i m and f as ci a, and not i ced thatthe w i ndow s w er e r ott i ng “al ong the bott om , al ong the s t ool , t he
w in d o w sill o n th e o u tsid e , an d a b o u t fo u r o r fiv e in c h e s u p o n e a c h sid e . . . . ” B ird so n g d id not“t earthe w i ndow s open” t o s ee i f ther e w as any moi s tur e barr i erar ound them or i ns pect
w hetherthe w i ndow s w er e pr oper l y i ns t al l ed and s eal ed and/ orcaul ked. B i r ds ong di d not
even at t em pt t o o pen any of the w i nd ow s. ¶ 8
. B ird so n g d id n o t p ro c e e d w ith p a in tin g th e h o m e a n d “ [l] e ft th e m to d e c id e w h a t to do
. ” S ub sequen t l y, the ho m e u nd erw ent m aj or reconst ruct i on , w hich, according t o C urt i ss M cK ee, cos t$528, 000. R es i dent i al bui l derJ eb St ew artw as i nvol ved i n the r econs truct i on, and pr ovi ded depos i t i on t es t i m ony thati ti ncl uded “de m o[ i ng ] the hous e, and t ak[ i ng] t he E I FS[ ] of

f the out s i de of

the hous e, and go[ i ng] back w i th r eal s tucco a nd r epl ac[ i ng] t he 3
w in d o w s,[ ] an d re d o [in g ] th e in ter io r w h e re th e d a m a g e w a s .” A c c o rd in g to S tew a rt,

4 “al m os tevery” w ooden w i ndow “w as rott en. ” St ew artf ur thers t at ed thatther e w as no 5
w at erpr oo fi ng around any o f the w i nd ow s, n o m ois ture barr i er pl aced a bo ve som e w i nd ow s,
a n d th a t s o m e w in d o w s w e re in s ta lle d u s in g “ [p ]o o r f ra m in g te c h n iq u e .” 6

### Count Oneof the Com plaint provi ded that

El lington Hom es had f

ai le d to c onstruc t 7 

### thehome“in a wor

kmanlike m anne r f

it for habi tati on . . . .” Speci fi ca lly, the Mc Kee s allegedthat: thear ea sur rounding multiplewindows pla ce d in t he back of the hous e ha s con stantlyleakedrainw ater into the ho use, cau singdamag e bo th to the frame around thewindows inside and outsi de of thehouseand the wa ll s and bas eboards of the hous e; the baseboards unde r the windows have rott ed; the fram es sur

rounding thewindows ar e be ginning to rot; the sewindows inc lude large “p icture” type w ind ow s andthe [M cKees] fear th at w ithth e frame around thewindows rotting that t he windowsm ay fa ll , ca

using bodi ly injur

y; thefl oor l ea ding to theupstair s bedroom sl opes ; theret urn air cha se s wer e not prope rly se al ed; the sto ne veneer on t he f ront of the hous e wa s l ai d without anyallow ance fo r seep age of moisture inth e sto ne wall cavity ; th e roo f leaks; thema st er

vani ty m ar

blet op ha s crac ked; the se curit y sys te m ha s f

ai le d; t he EIF S i np lace, Dryvit O utsu lation , was imp rop erly in stalled, inter a lia , with im prope r s ea lant or

no se al ing and/ or i mproper fl as hing or

no fl as hing a long, and/ or ove r and/or

around thewindows , fa sc ia boards , st one roof

line, plante r box, rear wa ll , doo rs, and bri ck m old; theaut omati c e le ctroni c s hutt er s are broke n and the hous e must havemol d re me diation beca useof m ois ture int rus ion dueto improper

cons tr uction. 6 ¶9. A ddi t i onal l y, the hom e of the M cK ees ’ next - door nei ghbor s ( one of w hom w as A nn M cK ee’ s cous i n) w as al s o construct ed by E l l i ngt on H om es . A ccor di ng t o the M cK ees , t hat hom e had “ s i m i l ar. . . l eaki ng, i ntrudi ng w at er [ , ] ” and “j us t. . . m ul t i pl e pr obl ems . . . . ” The M cK ee s fu rth e r s tate d that they d id n o t believe the w ind o w s u sed in tha t ho m e w ere
m anuf actur ed by W eatherShi el d. ¶10. In t heirC om plai nt, t he M cK ees ackn ow l edg ed thatt heirho m e had num er ous p r o b l e ms wh i c h d i d n o ti mp l i c a t e e i th e rW e a th e rS h i e l d o rBo we r s W i n d o w. C o u n tT wo 7 of the Com pl a i nts t a t e d tha tthe w i nd ows man uf a c tur e d b y W e a the rShi e l d a nd pu r c ha s ed f r om B ow er s W i ndow w er e “ a def ect i ve pr oduct

i n thatthey have l eake d e versi nce t hey
w er e pl ace d i n t he house
. ” (Em phas i s added. ) C ountT hr ee of the C om pl ai ntpr ovi ded that

### See Daubert v. Mer rell Dow Pharms

., Inc . , 509 U. S. 579 , 113 S. Ct
. 27 86 , 12 5 L . 8 

### Ed. 2d 469 ( 1993). 7 the def endant s w er e “j oi nt l y and s ever al l y l i abl e f or t he l eaki ng i nt o the hous e and the d a m a g e c au sed there b y to the h o u se struc ture[, ] ” w h ich in clud ed refere n ce to d efe c ts

“ p ro x im a tely c a u se d ” b y “ th e d e fe c tiv e w in d o w s m a n u fa c tu re d b y [W e a th e r S h ie ld ] a n d s o ld b y [B o w e rs W in d o w ].” ¶1 1. O n A pr i l 3, 20 07 , the M c K e e s f i l e d the i r “ D e s i gn a t i on of Expe r t s . ” Rega r di ng t he d efe cti v en ess o f th e w ind o w s, th e M cK ee s de sign ated B ir d so n g as th eir ex p ert. T h ere after, W e a th e r S h ield filed a “ M o tio n In L im in e to C o n d u c t D au bert [ ] H ear i ng and Excl ude 8 E x p e r tOp i n i o n T e s t i mo n y o f Bi l l Bi r d s o n g , ” wh i c h wa s j o i n e d b y Bo we r s W i n d o w. Fol l ow i ng hear i ng, the ci r cui tj udge conc l uded that , w hi l e B i r ds ong “w oul d be qual i f i ed as a l ay per s on t o gi ve an op i nion[ , ] ” i tw oul d be “ve ry di f f i cul tt o f i nd that
. . . the dec i s i ons
o f [ Ku m h o T

ire C o. v. Car m i chael , 526 U
. S. 137, 119 S. C t . 1167, 143 L
. E d. 2d 238 (1 9 9 9 )], [ Miss. T

ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 )], .
. . w o u ld qual i f y hi m underthe f

act s of t hi s cas e and w i th hi s t es t i m ony t o gi ve t es t i m ony as an
ex p ert. ” T h e c ir cu itco u rtthen en tered an “O rde r G ran ti n g M o ti o n to E x c lud e E x p ert W itn e s s T e s tim o n y o f W illia m B ir d s o n g .” ¶1 2. Subse quent l y, B ow er s W i ndow fi l e d a “ M ot i on f orSummary J ud gment ” w hi ch
m ai nt ai ned thatthe M cK ees coul d notes t abl i s h “t he nece s s ary el ement s t o prove t he w ooden
w i nd ows pu r c ha s e d f

r om Bow e r s [ W i nd ow] wer e d e f e c t i ve [ , ] ” o r“ mee tthe i rb ur de n of

### Howeve r, thi s Cour t not es that

an e xam inati on of the Mc Kee s’ “Se cond 9 

### Supple mental and Ame nded Com plaint” r eve al s no c laim s of negl ige nceaga ins t Bowe rs Window . 8 p roo f w ith reg ard to the irn e g li g en ce claim s . . . . ” F o ll o w ing h ea ri n g , the c ir cu itco u rt 9 g ra n te d B o w e rs W in d o w ’s “ M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.” ¶13. N ext , W eatherShi el d f i l ed a “ M ot i on f

orSum m ary J udgm ent ” w hi ch mai nt ai ned that the M cK ees had f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthe w i ndow s had bee n “des i gned i n a def ect i ve
m an n er” w h en they h ad leftW ea ther S h iel d ’s co n tr o l, or tha t “th e ‘fail u re’ is an y thing m o re than an i nher entchar act er i s t i c of thatpr oduct– the f

actt hatw ood rot s . ” Fol l ow i ng hear i ng, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed an “O r derG r ant i ng W eatherShi el d M anuf actur i ng, I nc. ’ s M ot i on fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.” ¶1 4. Subse quent l y, t he M cK ees t i m el y f i l e d “ N ot i c e of

A pp e a l ” r e ga r di ng the “ O r der G r ant i ng M ot i on t o E xcl ude Exper tW i tnes s T es t i m ony of W i l l i am B i rdsong, ” the “O r der G r ant i ng B ow ers W i ndow and D oorC o. , I nc. ’ s M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” and the

“ O rd e r G ra n tin g W e a th e r S h ie ld M a n u fa c tu ri n g , In c .’s M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.” T his C ou rtcon sol i dated the ap peal of tho se ruli ng s. I S S UES ¶1 5 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherthe ci r cui tcour tabuse d i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng B i l l B i r ds ong f r om pr ovi di ng expertt es t i m ony. ( 2) W hethert he ci r cui tcour ter r ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof W e a th e rS h i e l d a n d Bo we r s W i n d o w.

### 9 A N A L Y S IS I. W h e th e r th e cir c u it co u r t a b u se d its d isc r e tio n in ex c lu d in g B ill B i rds ong f

rom provi di ng expert t es t i m ony. ¶16. “[ T ] he admi s s i on of expertt es t i m ony i s w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge.

. . . T her ef

or e, t he deci s i on of a tr i al j udge w i l l st and ‘ unl es s w e conc l ude thatthe di s cr et i on
w as arbi tr ary and cl ear l y err oneous, am ou nt i ng t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” K

il hullen v. K ansas Cit y S. R y. , 8 So. 3d 168, 172 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d at 34 ). See al s o Mos s v. Bate s v il

le Cas ke t

Co. , I nc. , 9 35 So. 2d 393, 404 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Tu n i c a Co u n t

y v. Ma tth e ws , 926 So. 2d 209, 216 ( M i s s . 2006) ) ( “[ a] s the tr i al courtoper at es as th e g atek ee p er a s to the ad m issi b il ity o f ex p ert t esti m o n y , w e e x am in e th e tri al co u rt ’s d ec isi o n u n d er a n ab u se o f discre ti o n stan d ard o f rev iew ”). ¶ 1 7 . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 sta tes th a t: [ i ] f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i l l ass i s tthe tr i erof factto u n derst and the ev i den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expe r tby know l edge, s ki l l , e xper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y ther et o i n t he f

or m of an opi ni on or otherw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci entf act s o r dat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and m ethods , and ( 3) the w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o t he f act s of the ca s e. M i s s . R . E vi d. 702. “Thi s rul e makes itnece s s ary f ora tr i al courtt o appl y a tw o- pr onged i nqui ry w hen eva l uat i ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of expertt es t i m on y: ( 1) i s the w i tnes s qual i f i ed, and ( 2) i s t he t es t i m ony re l evantand re l i abl e?” W att s v. R adiatorSpecialt

y Co. , 990 So. 2d 143, 146 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d at 35 ). ¶18. R egar di ng qua l i f i cat i ons, “a w i t ness need no tbe a spe ci al i sti n an y part i cul ar pr of es s i on t o t es t i f

y as an expe r t . . . . T he s cope of the w i tnes s ’ s know l edge a nd exper i ence ,

### “ ‘ Re l e vant e vi de nc e ’ m e ans e vi de nc e havinganyt e nd e nc y t o m akethee xi st enc e 10 

### of any fact th at is of co nsequen ce to th e determin ationof th e actionmore p rob able o r less proba blethan it

would bewithout t

he e vide nce .”Mis s. R. Evi d. 401. 10 and nota ny a r t i f

i ci al c l as s i f

i cat i on, governs the ques t i on of admi s s i bi l i ty. ” U

n i v. o f M iss. Med. Ctr. v. P o u n ders , 9 7 0 S o . 2 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See a l so Ca lvetti v. A n tclif

f , 346 F. Supp. 2d 92, 110- 11 ( D . D . C
. 2004) ( quot i ng L ohre nz v. D o n n e lly , 223 F. Supp. 2d 25, 35- 36 ( D . D . C
. 2002) ) ( “A n indi vidual m ay be de emed an
e x p e rt b a se d o n ‘in ten se p ra c tica l ex p e rie n c e ’ in th e p a rticu lar fie ld .”); Ca in v. Mid -S o u th P um p Co. , 458 So. 2d 1048, 1050 ( M i s s . 1984) ( “[ F] or m al educa t i on i s notthe onl y m eans of becomi ng an experti n a fi el d. A w i tnes s m ay qual i f y t o gi ve an e xpertopi ni on thr ough hi s exper i ence onl y. ”)
. A s t o r el evanc e, M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 401 “f

avor s admi s s i on of the evi dence i f

i thas any pr obat i ve val ue[ , ] ” and “[ t ] he thr es hol d f oradmi s s i bi l i ty of 10
r el evantevi dence i s notgr eat . ” In v e sto r R e s. S e rv s., In c . v. Ca to , 15 S o. 3d 41 2, 41 7 (M i ss. 2009) ( quot i ng McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2d at 4 0 ). F inally, in it s g ate-k ee p ing role, th e tri al co u rt
m u st a lso “e x a m in e the relia b ili ty ” o f th e ex p e rt’s o p in io n . Ja n ssen P harm aceuti ca, I nc.
v. B ailey , 87 8 S o. 2d 31 , 6 0 (M i ss. 20 04 ). “In evaluat i ng rel i abil i ty, the co urt ’s ‘ f ocus . . . m ustbe sol el y on pr i nci pl es and m ethodol ogy , n o t o n th e c o n c lu s io n s th a t th e y g e n e ra te .’ D au bert , 509 U
. S. at595 .
. . . E xpertt es t i m ony admi t t ed attr i al m us tbe bas ed on sc ien tif ic
m ethods and pr ocedur es , not on uns uppor t ed s

peculat i on ors ubj ect i ve be l i ef
. ” Hubbard v. McD onald’s Cor

p. , 4 1 S o . 3 d 6 7 0 , 6 7 5 (M is s . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o G u lf S o u th P i pelin e, Co. v. P itre , 3 5 S o . 3 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 9 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ) (“ [M ] ere ly sp ec u lat ive e x p ert
o p in io n s s h o u ld n o t b e a d m itt e d .”); E dm o n d s v . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 787, 792 ( M i s s . 2007)

### As to the win do ws, the McK ees also d esign ated John No ble of the M adiso n C ounty 11 

### Per mi t Departm ent

who, a long wi th Birdsong, wa s “e xpec te d t o te stif y that t he l ower large windows in t

he de n of t

he hous e s hould have bee n of tem per ed gl as s be ca

usetheMadi son County .
. . buil ding c ode r equire d that . . . in 1999 . . . .”Birdsong’ s deposi ti on te stim ony pro vid ed th at he w as “almost p ositiv e” that th e win do w s d id n ot meet th ose ap plicab le buil ding c ode s tandards. Yet both Birdsong and Ste wart al so st at ed that thi s s af ety is suehad no re le vanc e t o wat er

int rus ion, and ther e wa s no indic ation t hat any of the windows ha d shatt er ed. As theMcKe es ’ s uit aga ins t We ather

Shie ld and Bower s Window is pre dic at ed up onpro du ct liability , this C ourt con clud es th at th e untemp ered-g lass issu e is with out merit. See Mis s. Co de Ann. § 11- 1-63( a) (i ii ) ( Rev. 2002) ( [C] laim ant mus t prove by a preponderanc e of

theevi denc e that

“[ t] he def

ec tive and unre as onably dangerous c ondition of the product

proxi mate ly c aus ed the dama ges for whic h re cove ry i s s ought. ”)
. 11 (“[A ] co u rtsho u ld no t g ive .
. . an ex p ert carte b lanc h e to p roffer a n y o p inion h e c h o o ses.”); McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at37 ( quot i ng Ku m h o T ire , 5 2 6 U . S
. at 15 7 ) (“[N ] eith er D a u b e rt nor the Feder al R ul es of

E vi dence r equi r es thata court‘ admi topi ni on evi dence thati s connec t ed t o e xi s t i ng da t a onl y by the ip se d ixito f th e e x p ert, ’ as se lf -pro claim ed ac cu rac y b y an ex p ert [i s] an insu ffi cien t m ea su re o f reli ab il ity . ”). ¶ 1 9
. R e g a rd in g th e d e fe c tiv e n e s s o f t h e w in d o w s , th e M c K e e s d e s ig n a te d B ir d s o n g , a “ho m e bu i l ding con tract or[ , ] ” w ho w as: expec t ed t o t est i f

y thatthe w ooden w i ndow s i n the M cK ees ’ hous e, w hi ch w i ndow s ar e on a l ake, w er e notappr op ri at e fora l ocat i on w i th thatm uch m o istu re a n d h u m id ity . T h o se w o o d e n w in d o w s d id n o t m e e t th e sta n d a rd in the i ndus tr y fort hatl ocat i on and caus ed r otand dam age t o t he M cK ees ’ hous e.

. . . [ B i r ds ong] i s a l s o e xpect ed t o t es t i f y thatappr opr i at e w i ndow s w oul d not h a v e ro tte d w ith in tw o y e a rs .[ ] 11 ¶20. A t his depos i t i on, B i r ds ong s t at ed that he had tw enty- f our year s of exper i ence as a gener al contr act ori n the met r o J acks on area. B i r ds ong acknow l edged thathe had ne ver
w or ked f ora w i ndow m anuf

actur erorw i ndow s el l er ; had no s peci al educa t i on, tr ai ni ng, or exper i ence s peci f

i c t o w i ndow s ; had no pr of es s i onal r es um e orcurr i cul um vi t ae; and had

### Acc ording to St ewart , “ finger -j oint” m eans “ ins te ad of taking a s oli d pie ceof s toc k, 12 

### they ’ll make a b oardout of scrap s, andthey ’ll fing er-joint it tog ether an d g lue it.” A cc o rdin g to B ir d so n g , h e w o u ld i n stal l w o o d en w ind o w s o n ly if the o w n ers “ w ere 13 ju s t h e ll b e n t o n h a v in g th e m .” 

### 12 neverpr evi ous l y t es t i f i ed as an expe r tw i tnes s i n any capaci ty. M or eover , B i r ds ong
conce ded that , al though he had be en r et ai ned by the M cK ees , h e h ad prepar ed no not es or
w r i t t en r eport s r egar di ng hi s one - t i m e, e xt er i orobs ervat i ons of the M cK ees ’ w i ndow s and that , i n f or m ul at i ng hi s opi nions, h e had r evi ew ed no document s f r om otherexpert s or sources, such as b oo ks, m agazines, treat i ses, art i cl es, or ot her pub l i cat i on s. ¶21. A ccor di ng t o B i rdsong, t he “bu l k of t he problem ” w i th the w i ndow s w as w at er i ntrus i on, as “w at ercam e t hr ough the bott om s eal of the w i ndow , the s as h, and p r o b a b ly , I
a s s u me thati tw entf

r om there t o i n beh i nd the s tucco . . . . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) Y et B i r ds ong admi t t edl y made onl y a one - t i m e, e xt er i ori ns pect i on of the w i ndow s i n the s pr i ng of 2002, i n w hi ch he di d notcheck f orunder l yi ng m oi s tur e barr i er s orpr opers eal i ng and/ or
ca u lking
. B ir d so n g also d id n o t kn o w if the w o o d en w ind o w s rotted b ec au se th ey “d idn ’t getpai nt ed orpr i m ed orw hathappened .
. . . ” Ins t ead, B i r ds ong opi ned thatf i nger - j oi nt ed, 12
ex teri o r, w o o d en w ind o w s “o u g h t to be i ll eg al” i n cen tr al M issi ssipp i, as e v en if they w ere pr oper l y pr i m ed and pa i nt ed, “i t ’ s al l goi ng t o r ot . ” W i th thats ai d, B i r ds ong acknow l edged 13 t h a tm a n y Mi s s i s s i p p i h o m e s h a v e s u c h wo o d e n wi n d o ws ; th a two o d e n wi n d o ws
m anuf actur ed by A nder s on, Pel l a, and M arvi n ar e sol d i n M i s s i s s i ppi ; and t hathe knew of no i ndus try s t andar d orbui l di ng code w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed the use of w ooden w i ndow s . Y et
a c c o rd in g to B ir d s o n g , s u c h w in d o w s “ [d ]on ’t m e e t my stan da rd” f orr e s i de nt i a l c on s truct i on “[ a] nyw her e i n M i s s i s s i ppi ” bas ed upon “ B i rdsongcom m on sense [ , ] ” and thatm et al orvi nyl

### Bird son g co nced ed th at he d id n ot kno w th e price o f the w ind ow s in the McK ees’ 14 

### home
. 13 w i ndow s w oul d nothave r ot t ed w i thi n tw o year s . ( E m phas i s added. ) B utB i r ds ong added th a t h e h a d n e v e r p u b lish e d h is p e rso n a l sta n d a rd re g a rd in g th e u se o f w o o d e n w in d o w s in M issi ssipp i and w as a w are o f no otherg eneral co ntr act orw ho had adopt ed hi s per s onal
s t andar d. ¶ 2 2
. T h e re a fte r, W e a th e r S h ield file d a “ M o tio n In L im in e to C o n d u c t D a u b e rt H ear i ng and Excl ude E xpertO pi ni on T es t i m ony of B i l l B i r ds ong, ” w hi ch B ow er s W i ndow j oi ned. A tthe mot i on hear i ng, B i r ds ong t es t i f i ed thathe had pr evi ous l y i ns t al l ed, repai re d, or
r epl ace d “thous ands ” of w i ndow s , and thathe had bui l torm anuf actur ed “undera hundr ed”
w i nd ow s. A ccordi ng t o B i rdsong, duri ng his 20 02 exter i or observat i on of the M cK ees’ hom e, he not i ced r oti n “more than t en and l es s than f i f ty” w i ndow s . R egardi ng t he under l yi ng pr obl em, B i r ds ong “coul dn’ ts ay w hetheri tw as the pr i m i ng orw hetheri tw as not fla sh e d o r . . . w h a t, oth e r th a n it ju s t d e te ri o ra te d a n d w h e n it l e a k e d fro m th e b o tto m , it leak ed ri gh ton t o the hou se. ” B ut B i rdsong further st at ed thatfi ng er- j oint ed, exter i o r,
w oo d en w i nd ow s w ere “as cheap as yo u can get” and w ere unsuit able f or the M cK ees’ 14 hom e gi ven i t s pr oxi m i ty t o the l ake a nd i t s gener al geogr aphi c l ocat i on i n centr al M i s s i s s i ppi
. B i r ds ong es t i m at ed that“ni nety per centof f i nger - j oi ntext er i orw i ndow s t hat I’v e lo o k e d a t o v e r tw e n ty -fo u r y e a rs h a v e h a d p ro b le m s [,]” a n d re a ss e rte d th a t “th e o n ly t i m e I w oul d [ i nst al l f

i nger - j oi nt ed, ext er i or , w ooden w i ndow s ] i s i f
. . . the homeow ner themsel ves s ai d thi s i s w hatI w ant . ” Y etB i r ds ong agai n acknow l edged thatf i nger - j oi nt ed,In so ru lin g , the c irc u it j u d g e a d d e d th a t: 15 [ a] judge has a di f

f i cul tt i m e s epar at i ng hi s ow n per s onal bel i ef s and k n o w led g e fro m th e e v id e n c e o f a c a se o fte n tim e s. . . . I, as a . . . p ro p e rty ow ner , have a n opi ni on m ys el f aboutthe
. . . ef

f ect i venes s of

w ooden w ind o w [s] an d
. . . I’ m fam il iar w ith fi n g er-joints.
. . . [M ] an y h o m es to d ay are s t i l l s t a n d i n g wi th wo o d e n wi n d o ws – wi t h f i n g e r - j o i n t s , p e rh a p s my h o me m ay be one of

thos e, i tw as bui l ts ever al year s ago.



### 14 ext er i or , w ooden w i ndow s ha ve “bee n a cce pt ed” i n the i ndus try a nd thats uch w i ndow s have been used in tho usand s of M i ssi ssi pp i ho m es. ¶ 2 3
. T h e c irc u it j u d g e su m m a riz e d B ird so n g ’s t esti m o n y as fo ll o w s, “h e w as in v o lv e d w ith
cons truct i on, eval uat i on of hom es of

al l val ues , . . . and he fi nal l y . . . gave a n opi ni on t hat th e . . . f in g e r-jo in t w in d o w sh o u ld b e o u tlaw e d a n d n o t allo w e d a lth o u g h
. . . itis s til l in
us e. ” B as ed t her eon, the ci r cui tj udge conc l uded that , w hi l e B i r ds ong “w oul d be qual i f i ed
as a l ay per s on t o gi ve an opi ni on[ , ] ” i tw oul d be “very di f f i cul tt o f i nd that
. . . the dec i s i ons
o f [Ku m h o T

ire , 5 2 6 U .S
. a t 1 3 7 ], [McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 1 ],
. . . w o u ld q u a lify h im underthe f

act s of thi s cas e and w i th hi s t es t i m ony t o gi ve t es t i m ony as an exper t . ” T he 15 ci r cui tcourtthen ent er ed an “ O r derG r ant i ng M ot i on t o E xcl ude Exper tW i tnes s T es t i m ony
o f W illia m B ir d s o n g .” ¶24
. In evaluat i ng the adm i ssi bil i ty of B i rdsong’s p roposed exp ert t est i m on y, this C o u rt f i nds a myri ad of

pr obl ems ateac h l evel of the ana l ys i s . W i thoutques t i on, “[ a] w i tnes s m ay qual i f y t o gi ve an e xpertopi ni on thr ough hi s exper i ence onl y. ” Ca in , 458 So. 2d at1050. See al s o M is s . R . E v id . 7 0 2 (a w itn e s s m a y b e “ q u a lif ie d a s a n e x p e rt b y . . . e x p e ri e n c e . .

. . ” ); Ca in , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 0 (“ [A ] w a ter w e ll d riller w ith 2 3 y e a rs o f e x p e rie n c e w o u ld qual i f y as an expe r ti n t he f

i el d and shoul d be abl e t o es t i m at e how m uch i tcos t s t o r epl ace

### 15

a w ater w ell p u m p o r m o tor. ”); For d MotorCo. v. D ees , 223 So. 2d 638, 641 ( M i s s . 1969) ( “partow nera nd managerof a l ar ge aut om ot i ve r epai rs hop” w i th thi r ty year s of exper i ence qu al i fi ed “to t est i fy as an exp erton the co nst ruct i on and w orki ng of the st eeri ng m echan i sm
o f a p ick u p tru c k an d als o the m a n n e r in w h ich the ca b w a s b o lted to th e c h a s s is ” ); Ford Mo to r C o . v. Co c k re ll , 211 So. 2d 833, 838 ( M i ss. 1 968) ( truck mechani c w i th thi r ty- f i ve y ea rs of e x p erien ce an d “e igh t m ec h an ics i n h is em p loy ” d ee m ed “q u ali fi ed as a n ex p ert
w i tness” i n a truck acci den tcase)
. H ere, B i rdsong’s tw enty- four years of expe ri ence a s a gener al contr act orl i kel y w oul d have qua l i f i ed hi m as an experti n the br oad f i el d of gener al contr act i ng. B utBi r ds ong w as notof f er ed as a n e xperti n thatgener al f i el d, butr atheri n the
s peci f i c f i el d of w i ndow m anuf

actur e and des i gn, as s es s i ng the purpor t ed def ect i venes s of the s ubj ectw i ndow s . W i th r es pectt o w i ndow s , w hi l e B i r ds ong’ s exper i ence as a gene r al contr act ori ncl uded i ns t al l at i on, r epai r , and r epl ace m ent , al ong w i th the manuf actur e of “undera hundr ed” w i ndow s , even he acknow l edged thathe had no s peci al educa t i on, tr ai ni ng, ore xper i ence s peci f i c t o w i ndow s , a nd he ha d ne verw or ked f or a w i ndow
m a n u fa c tu re r o r se ller. B a se d th e re o n , thi s C o u rt fin d s th is c a se fu n d a m e n tally di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om thos e ca s es i n w hi ch a w i tnes s w as qua l i f i ed as an expe r tby exper i ence . See Ca in , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 0 ; D ees , 2 2 3 S o . 2 d a t 6 4 1 ; Co c k re ll , 211 So. 2d at838. F u r th e r mo r e , th e l i mi t e d n a tu r e o f Bi r d s o n g ’ s o n e - t i me , e x t e r i o ro b s e r v a t i o n o f th e wi n d o ws in th e s p ri n g o f 2 0 0 2 , s ee s upr a ¶ 2 1 , ca ll s into q u esti o n h is spe cifi c q u ali fi ca ti o n s to testi fy
a s e ith e r a lay p e rso n o r e x p e rt re g a rd in g th e d e fe c tiv e n e ss o f th o se w in d o w s. T h e c irc u it
courtdet erm i ned thatB i r ds ong’ s l ack of exper i ence and/ orcr edent i al s i n the f i el d of w i ndow
m anuf actur e and des i gn di d nots uf f i ci ent l y qua l i f

y Bi r ds ong t o pr ovi de expertt est i m ony.

### Ad ditio nally , St ew art , a r es i dent i al bui l derinvolved i n the r emoval of the s ubj ect 16 w i ndow s , pr ovi ded depos i t i on t es t i m ony thatthe us e of w ooden w i ndow s i s comm on and thatthey gene r al l y ar e notdef ect i ve. 

### 16 B a se d o n th e re c o rd b e fo re u s, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e lea rn e d c irc u it j u d g e a b u se d h is d is c re tio n i n e x c lu d in g B ir d s o n g ’s o p in io n . See K il hullen , 8 So. 3d at172. B uteven
as s um i ng ar

guendo thatB i r ds ong w as qual i fi ed, h i s t es t i m ony l acke d both s uf f i ci ent
r el evanc e and r el i abi l i ty. ¶2 5 . R egardi ng rel evan ce, B i rdsong’s t est i m on y w as predi cat ed u po n h i s one-t i m e, ext er i or obs ervat i on of

the w i ndow s i n the s pr i ng of 2002. I n thatobs ervat i on, B i r ds ong di d not
c h e c k fo r u n d e rl y in g m o is tu re b a rr ie rs o r p ro p e r s e a lin g a n d /o r c a u lk in g . See sup ra ¶ 21. T h e re fo re , B ird so n g c a n o ffe r e v id e n c e o n ly th a t th e w in d o w s ro tted . B u t th e “ fa c t th a t is of cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of the ac t i on” i s notthatthe w i ndow s r ot t ed ( thatf act i s noti n di s put e) , butthe s our ce of the r ot . M i s s . R. Evi d. 401. T hi s Courtf ai l s t o s ee w hat evi dence B i r ds ong can pr es entthatai ds thati nqui ry. ¶26. A s t o r el i abi l i ty, B i r ds ong opi ned thatthe w i ndow s w er e def ect i ve, as f

i nger - j oi nt ed,
ex teri o r, w o o d en w ind o w s sh o u ld b e “ il lega l” i n ce n tr al M issi ssipp i. In fo rm u lat ing this
o p in io n , B ir d so n g ad m ittedly rev iew ed n o o u tsi d e so u rce s an d co u ld cite no ind u stry
s t andar ds orbui l di ng codes i n s uppor tther eof
. I n f act , B i r ds ong acknow l edged that tho usand s of hom es i n M i ssi ssi pp i hav e w o od en w i nd ow s. Y et , i n B i rdsong’s ow n w ords, 16 h is o p in io n w a s b a se d u p o n “ m y sta n d a rd ” a n d “ B ird so n g c o m m o n se n se .” A s s u c h , this C our ts um m ar i l y concl udes thatthi s i s nothi ng m or e t han “u ns uppor t ed s pecul at i on or
s ubj ect i ve bel i ef

, ” l acki ng any s embl ance of an underl ying “r el i abl e pr i nci pl [ e] and

### “A f ac t i s m at eria l i f i t ‘ te nds t o re solve any of the i ss ues pro perlyrai se d by the 17 

### parti es .’ ” Moss , 935 So. 2d at 398 ( quoting Palmer v . Anders on Inf

ir mary Bene vol ent Ass ’n , 656 So. 2d 790, 794 ( Mis s. 1995))
. 17 m etho[ d]
. ” Hu bb ard , 41 S o. 3d at67 5; M i ss. R . E vid. 7 0 2
. A s W eat her Sh i el d argue s, B ir d s o n g e ff

e c tiv e ly u tiliz e d “ n o m e th o d o lo g y , m u c h le s s a s c ie n tif ic a lly re c o g n iz e d o n e [.]” T her ef or e, even a s s um i ng ar guendo thatthe ci rcui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on on t he qual i f i cat i on i s s ue, w hi ch i tdi d not , the appl i cat i on of r el evanc e and r el i abi l i ty pr i nci pl es al s o w oul d cal l f

orthe exc l us i on of

B i r ds ong’ s expertt es t i m ony. II . W h e th e r th e c irc u it c o u r t e r r e d in g r a n tin g s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f W e a t h e r S h i e l d a n d Bo we r s W i n d o w. ¶27. “Thi s C our t ’ s w el l
- es t abl i s hed s t andar d of r evi ew fora t r i al cour t ’ s gra ntordeni al of
sum m ary jud g m en ti s de novo
. ” Covington Count y Sch. D is t

. v. Magee , 2 9 S o . 3 d 1 , 3 -4 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [s] u m m ary judgm ent i s approp ri at e w here “the p l eadings, dep osit ion s, an sw ers t o i nt err ogat or i es a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e, t ogetherw i th the af f i davi t s , i f any, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al f act [ ] and thatthe 17 movi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gmentas a mat t e rof l a w . ” M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 56( c)
. “T he m ov i ng par ty has the bur den of demonstr at i ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act ( s ) exi s t s , and the non- m ovi ng party m us tbe gi ven the benef i tof the doubtconce r ni ng the exi s t ence of a m at er i al f

act . ” [ W aggoner v. W il liam s on , 8 S o . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 -5 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 )]. Magee , 29 So. 3d at4. H ow ever , “[ t ] he party oppos i ng the m ot i on mustbe di l i gentand may notr es tupon al l egat i ons or deni al s i n t he pl eadi ngs butm us tsetforth s peci f i c f act s s how i ng ther e ar e i ndeed ge nui ne i s s ues f ort r i al
. ” W

ill ia m s v . B e n n e tt , 92 1 S o. 2d 12 69 , 12 72 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted).

### Counse l f or the Mc Kees was alluding t o a s tate me nt of undis pute d fa ct

from 18 

### Wea ther S

hield Ma nu factu ring , Inc. v. P PG Ind ustries , I nc. , 19 98 WL 46 99 13 (W.D . Wis. 1998), that “ [u] ntreated wo od product s c an f ai l dueto de cay within t wo to t en ye ar s depe nding upon ge ogra

phy, wood s pec ie s, and other fa ct ors .” Id . at

*1. But a revi ew of

the underlying fa ct s in PPG Indus trie sre vea ls it

is a lt ogether

inappl ic abl e to t

his ca se . The re , Weathe r Shi el d fi le d sui t a gainst PPG Industries for br ea ch of war ranty, negl ige nce , and misreprese ntati o n, alleg ing that P PGIndustries h ad, b eginnin g in19 84 , soldthem a “de fe ctivewood pre se rvative [PI LT] whi ch ca use d i ts windows to rot

prem at ure ly. ” Id . The critical, un d is p utedfact for p urp oses o f the p resent case is th at, in 1 99 4, W eather S hield 18 (A) W e a th e r Sh ield ¶28. W hen W eatherShi el d fi l ed a “M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” i tm ai nt ai ned that the

“ o n ly c laim ” a g a in st it w a s “ o n e o f ‘d e fe c tiv e d e s ig n ’.” ( E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A c c o rd in g to W eatherShi el d: even i f ther e exi s t s evidence of the “f ai l ur e” of

the pr oduct , ther e i s no evi dence thatthe pr oductl ef tthe contr ol of

t he m anuf

actur eri n a def

ect i vel ydes i gned manner , ort hatthe “f ai l ur e” i s anythi ng m or e than an i nher ent char act er i s t i c of

thatpr oduct– the f actthatw ood r ot s. T hi s i s true, part i cul ar l y w her e, as her e, acc or di ng t o al l evi dence adduce d i n di s covery .

. . , thes e w ooden w i ndow s w er e notpr oper l y pr i m ed, c aul ked orf l as hed atthe t i m e they w er e i nst al l ed by [ E l l i ngt on H om es ] and/ or[ i t s ] r et ai ned s ubcon tract ors. W eatherShi el d f

ur thernot e d tha tBi r ds on g, w ho s e e xp e rtt e s t i mony had bee n excl uded, “w as the onl y w i tnes s off

er ed by the [ M cK ees ] w ho w oul d have s ubm i t t ed any e vi dence thatthe
su b ject w ind o w s w ere d efe cti v e a n d that su ch d efe ct w as th e ca u se o f any o f th e [M cK ee s’] d a m a g e s .” ¶ 2 9
. A t th e m o tio n h e a rin g , th e c irc u it ju d g e a sk e d c o u n se l fo r th e M c K e e s, “ h o w w o u ld you everpr ove yourpr oduct s l i abi l i ty cas e w i thoutan expe r t ?” Co un sel f orthe M cK ees
re sp o n d e d th a t “[t]h e re ’s a n iss u e a b o u t th e c o m p o sitio n o f th a t w o o d a n d th e f a c t th a t it
ro tte d in tw o y e a rs a s W e a th e rS h ie ld a lle g e d it w o u ld if it’ s c o m p le te ly u n tr e a te d .” 18

### “di sc ontinued i tsuseof PILT. ” Id . at *2. The s ubje ct windows in t

his ca sewer e not

orde re d unti l De ce mbe r 199 8 and J anuary 1999, and the Mc Kee s f ai l t o pre se nt any evi denc e that the ir windows had be en tre at ed wi th PI LT. Ac cordingly, this Court finds the pur

port ed si gnif ic anc e of PPG Indus trie

sto b e a “red h erring .” On appe al , the Mc Kee s a dditiona lly cont end that Weathe r Shi el d bre ac hed the 19 

### im pli ed warrantie s of

me rc hant abi li ty, fi tne ss for a partic ular purpos e, and habit abi li ty. But in th eir initial an d amen dedCo mplaints, the M cKees’ lo ne allegatio n again st W eather S hield was that the windows us ed in the ir hom e wer e “a

def ec tive product

in t hat the y havele ake d ever sin ce theywere p laced inthe h ou se.” As th e M cKees’ imp lied-w arrantyclaims again st Weathe r Shi el d ar e pr es ent ed f or the f ir st timeon appe al , this Court c oncludes that t

hey are proc edurall

y barre d
. See W

est v. W est , 891 So. 2d 203, 214 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Cr o we v. Sm ith , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 (M iss
. 1 9 9 2 )) (“ In M iss iss ip p i, ‘an a p p e llan t is n o t en tit led to ra ise a n e w iss u e o n a p p e a l, sin c e to d o so p re v e n ts th e trial c o u rt fro m h a v in g an o p p o rtu n ity to a d d re ss th e a lleg e d e rro r.’” ); Shaw v. Shaw , 603 S o. 2d 287, 292 (M i s s . 1992) ( “O ne of th e m o st fu n d a m e n tal a n d lo n g -e sta b lish e d ru les o f la w in M iss iss ip p i is th a t th e [ap p e llate co u rt ] w il l no t r ev iew m att ers o n ap p ea l th at w ere n o t r aised at th e tri al co u rtleve l. ”). 

### 19 A ccor di ng t o counse l f

orthe M cK ees , W eatherShi el d had not“come f orw ar d and i ndi cat ed
w ith an y p roo f w h atso ev er tha t th ese w ind o w s w ere ad eq u ately tr ea ted.” T h e c ir cu itco u rt
re jec te d th e M c K e e s’ a rg u m e n t an d e n ter e d a n “ O rd e r G ra n tin g W e a th e r S h ield M a n u fa c tu ri n g , In c .’s M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.” (1) P ro d u c t li a b ili ty 19 ¶3 0. “I n 1993, t he M i s s i s s i pp i l e gi s l a tur e p r omul ga t e d the Pr od uc t s Li a bi l i t y A ct and
c o d if ied w h at ha d form erly b ee n co m m o n law str ictli ab il ity . . . . S ince that ti m e p rod u cts l i abi l i ty cl ai m s have be en s peci f i cal l y governed by s t atut e . . . . ” Wi lli a ms , 9 21 So. 2d at 1273 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. A s s t at ed i n Wil lia ms : th e leg isla tu re h a s c o d ified th e re q u ire m e n ts u n iq u e to a d e sig n d e fe c t cla im and l ai d outan expl i ci tbl uepr i ntforcl ai m ant s t o pr ove w hen adva nci ng s uch a cl ai m . W hen cl ai m ant s do notful f i l l t hei rst atut ory obl i gat i on, they l eave the court s no ch oice butt o di s m i s s thei rcl ai m s beca us e they f ai l t o of f era key el ementof

pr oof r equi s i t e t o the court ’ s de t erm i nat i on of w hetherthe cl ai m ant has advanc ed a va l i d cl ai m underthe s t atut e.

### 20

Id
. at1277. ¶31. I n a produc tl i abi l i ty sui t , “pr oof of i nj ury al one i s i ns uf

f i ci ent , and .
. . m or e i s neede d t o sat i sf y t he [ cl ai m ant ’ s ] bur den. ” Forbes v. G en. Motors Cor p. , 935 So. 2d 869, 880 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cr eel v. G en. Motors Cor

p. , 2 3 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 , 1 0 9 (M is s . 1 9 7 0 ))
. See al s o C olem an v. D anek Med. , I nc. , 43 F. Supp. 2d 637, 646 ( S. D . M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng Catherv. CatheterT

ech. Cor p. , 753 F. Supp. 634, 638- 39 ( S. D . M i s s . 1991) ) ( “M er e pr oof of da m age f

ol l ow i ng the us e of

a pr oducti s nots uf

f i ci entt o es t abl i s h l i abi l i ty. ”)
. I n or der forthe M cK ees’ desi gn -def ectcl ai m t o survi ve W eat her Sh i el d’s “M oti on forS u m m ary Ju d g m en t, ” the y m u st estab li sh th at, w h en the w ind o w s leftW ea ther S h iel d ’s co n tr o l, there
ar e genui ne i s s ues of

m at er i al f

actr egar di ng w hetherthe w i ndow s w er e ( 1) “des i gned i n a def ect i ve manner ; ” ( 2) w hi ch r ender ed t hem “unr eas onabl y danger ous ” t o the M cK ees ; ( 3) thatthe “de f

ect i ve and unr eas onabl y danger ous condi t i on . . . p roxi m at el y caus ed” the M cK ees ’ dam ages ; ( 4) thatthe damages w er e notcaus ed by an “ i nher entchar act er i s t i c” of the w ooden w i ndow s w hi ch “ca nnotbe el i m i nat ed w i thoutsubs t ant i al l y compromi s i ng t he pr oduct ’ s us ef

ul nes s ordes i r abi l i ty” and w hi ch an “or di nary per s on” w oul d r ecogni ze; ( 5) thatW eatherShi el d knew orshoul d have know n of the “dange rt hatcaus ed the damage; ” and (6 ) th a t “th e re e x iste d a fe a s ib le d e sig n a ltern a tiv e th a t w o u ld h a v e to a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty p re v e n ted th e h a rm ” w ith o u t a lso “ im p a irin g th e u til ity , u se fu ln e ss , p ra c tica lity
o r de sir ab il ity o f” the w ind o w s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 3 (a), (b), & (f) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶3 2. R el yi ng upon P

P G Industr ies , th e Mc Ke e s c o n t e n d th a t “ [ s ] i n c e th e . . . wi n d o ws
ro tted w ith in tw o (2 ) y e a rs, W e a th e r S h ield is a d m itt in g th a t itso ld w h a t am o u n ted to untr eat ed, unpr ot ect ed w ood thatw as des t i ned t o r otw i thi n tw o year s . ” A ta m i ni m um , the

### 21

M cK ees as s ertthatther e exi s t s a “mat er i al i s s ue of f acta s t o w hetherthe w i ndow compani es had chos en t o pal m off

on the hom eow ner s t he com pany’ s ol d, def ect i ve w i ndow s thathad
re m a in e d in th e ir in v e n to ry fro m th e tim e [o f] th e P IL T se a so n e d w in d o w s th a t h a d fa iled in in n u m e ra b le h o m e s . . . .” ¶ 3 3
. W e a th e r S h ie ld re sp o n d s th a t P P G I ndustr ies is a “re d h erring ” an d that the “ so le
s uppor t ” f

orthe M cK ees ’ “def

ect i ve des i gn theory w as B i l l B i r ds ong’ s per s onal opi ni on t hat
n o o n e in M iss iss ip p i o u g h t to h a v e w o o d e n re sid e n tial w in d o w s.” W e a th e r S h ield a ss e rts that this w as i nsuff

i ci ent t o sat i sf

y the M cK ees’ d esign -def ectbu rden of proof, becau se B ir d so n g w a s “ u n a b le to test if y as to w h ethe r th e w ind o w s w ere d efe cti v e w h en they left W eatherShi el d, w hetherthey w er e def ect i ve w hen t hey l ef

tB ow er s [ W i ndow ] , orw hether they w er e def

ect i ve atal l
. ” Furtherm or e, W eatherS hi el d m ai nt ai ns thatthe M cK ees f ai l ed t o pr es entevi dence “t hatany al l eged de f ectpr oxi m at el y caus ed the damage” t o thei rhom e. Fi nal l y, W eatherShi el d cont ends t hatan “i nher entchar act er i s t i c” of w ood i s thati tr ot s , and
s uch “ca nnotbe el i m i nat ed w i thouts ubs t ant i al l y compromi s i ng the pr oduct ’ s us ef ul nes s or d e s ir a b ility .” ¶34. T hi s C our tf

i nds thatthe M cK ees of f eronl y “[ m ] er e pr oof

of damage f

ol l ow i ng t he
u s e o f” th e W e a th e r S h ie ld w in d o w s . Colem an , 43 F. Supp. 2d at646 ( quot i ng Cather , 753 F . S u p p . at 6 3 8 -3 9 ). T h e fa c t th a t th e ir w in d o w s le a k e d a n d ro tted is in su ffic ien t fo r th is d e sig n -d e fe c t cla im to su rv iv e W e a th e r S h ield ’s “ M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t.” T h is is p a r t i c u l a r l y tru e s i n c e Bi r d s o n g p e r f o r me d o n l y a s i n g l e , e x t e r i o ro b s e r v a t i o n o f th e wi n d o ws i n the s pr i ng of

2002, i n w hi ch he f

ai l ed t o chec k f

orunder l yi ng m oi s tur e barr i er s orpr oper
s eal i ng and/ orcaul ki ng; St ew artp rovi ded depos i t i on t es t i m ony thatther e w as no

### Th is Co urt further ad ds th at w e have pr evi ous l y af f i r m ed a t r i al cour t ’ s f

i ndi ng t hat 20 “one of the i nher ent c h a ra c ter ic [ s ] of w ood i s thati tr ot s [ , ] ” and thatthe M cK ees of f er ed no evi dence of

a “f eas i bl e des i gn al t ernat i ve. ” Moss , 9 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 40 5 (em p h asis in o ri g inal); M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 3 (f) (i i) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). 

### 22 w at e rpr oo f

i ng a r ou nd a ny of

the w i nd ows, no moi s tur e ba rr i e ra bo ve s ome wi nd ows, a nd

“ [ p ] o o rf r a mi n g t e c h n i q u e ” i n th e wi n d o w i n s t a l l a t i o n ; i ti s u n c l e a rwh e th e rth e wi n d o ws
we r e p a i n t e d wi th i n s i x mo n th s o f i n s t a l l a t i o n , a s r e q u i r e d t o p r e v e n tr o t t i n g ; a n d th e h o me of the M cK ees ’ next - doornei ghbor s , cons truct ed by El l i ngt on H om es , al s o exper i enced l eaking w i nd ow s, bu tdid not have W eat her Sh i el d w i nd ow s. 20 ¶ 3 5 . Re g a r d i n g th e M c Kee s ’ a r g u me n ton t he al l e ge d u s e o f i mpr o p e r l y tr e a t e d “ PI LT
s eas oned w i ndow s , ” thi s C our tfi nds an abse nce of “spe ci f i c f act s show i ng t her e ar e i ndeed genui ne i s s ues f

ortr i al
. ” Wil

lia ms , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d at 12 7 2
. A n o n m o v ing p arty “m u st do m o re than s i m pl y s how thatther e i s s om e met aphys i cal doubta s t o the m at er i al f act s [ , ] ” w hi ch the M c K e e s h a v e fa ile d to d o . Mat s ushita E lec. I

ndus. Co. , L td. v. Zenith R adi o Cor p. , 475 U . S
. 5 7 4 , 5 8 6 , 1 0 6 S
. C t. 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 6 , 8 9 L . E d
. 2 d 5 3 8 (19 8 6 ). ¶36. I n s um , even gi vi ng the M cK ees “t he ben efi t of t he doubt conce rni ng the exi s t ence
o f a m a te ri a l fa c t[, ]” th is C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rly e n ter e d in fa v o r o f W e a th e r S h ie ld
. Magee , 29 So. 3d at4. ( B ) B ow ers W

i ndow ¶37. I n i t s “ M ot i on f

orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” B ow er s W i ndow m ai nt ai ned thatthe M cK ees coul d not“pr ove the nec es s ary el ement s t o pr ove the w ooden w i ndow s pur chas ed f r om B o w e rs [W in d o w ] w e re d e fe c tiv e [,] ” o r “ m e e t th e ir b u rd e n o f p ro o f w ith re g a rd to th e ir negl i gence cl ai m s . . . . ” A tthe m oti on hear i ng, couns el f orB ow er s W i ndow ar gued that

### 23

“[ w ] hen i tboi l s dow n t o i t , w e sol d them som e w ood w i ndow s . [ A nn] M cK ee t al ked about thats he had ha d w ood w i ndow s bef or e, and s he l i ked them .
. . and .
. . that ’ s w hati tcomes dow n t o. ” I n gr ant i ng B ow er s W i ndow ’ s “ M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent , ” the ci r cui tj udge f ocus ed upon M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i ons 11- 1- 63( a) ( i ) ( 3) and ( f ) ( i ) & ( i i ) , then s t at ed: [a]ll o f u s w h o a re a d u lt o w n e rs o f . . . fra m e h o m e s w ith w in d o w s w o u ld r ecogni ze thatthe gr eatm aj or i ty of the homes i n thi s s t at e have w ooden wi n d o ws . Th e [ M c Ke e s ] s h o u l d h a v e k n o wn th a ti n th e l o c a t i o n o f th e i rh o me neara l ake ne arthe w at erw oul d be more s us cept i bl e t o r ota nd det er i or at i on t han a ho me l oc a t e d s omewher e e l s e ; ye tthe y c ho s e the s i t e of the i rho me. T h e [M c K e e s ] . . . f

a ile d to s h o w a m a te ri a l m a tte r t o b e d e v e lo p e d
. . . . I fa il t o s ee how I c an be advis ed of a def ect i ve prod uct, and w i th advi ce of that d efec t, turn a ro u n d

a n d sa y tha t I w a n t i t anyw a

y, a n dth e n later o n sa

y I’m ent i t l ed to dam ages becaus e of thatdef ect . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) (1) P ro d u c t li a b ili ty ¶38. A ppl yi ng the ana l ys i s i n supra ¶¶34- 36, a s t o Bow er s W i ndow , and addi ng thatno pr oof w as adduce d t hatB ow er s W i ndow “exe r ci s ed s ubs t ant i al contr ol over. . . the des i gn, t es t i ng, manuf

actur e, pa ckagi ng orl abel i ng of the pr oductthatcaus ed the harm [ , ]
. . . al t er ed
orm odi f i ed the pr oduct , ” or“had a ctual orcons truct i ve know l edge of the def ect i ve condi t i on
o f th e p rod u ct at th e ti m e [i t] su p p li ed the p ro d u c t[, ]” this C o u rtco n clud es th at su m m ary ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rly e n ter e d in fa v o r o f B o w e rs W in d o w o n th e M c K e e s’ p ro d u c t-liab ili ty claim s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 3 (h) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ).

### Th is Co urt ad dresses this claim because it w as addressed b y B ow ers Win do w. But 21 

### se e supra 

### note9. A ccor di ng t o Bow e r s W i nd ow, the M c K e e s c a n “ c i t e no s up po r tf orth[ e ] ge ne r al 22 sta tem e n t” th a t th e se ller o f w in d o w s m u st h a v e b e e n n e g lig e n t if th e w in d o w s ro tted w ith in tw o y ears . 

### 24 ( 2) N egl igence 21 ¶39. T he M cK ees ’ negl i gence cl ai m re qui r ed t hatt hey pr ove, by a prepo nd era nce of t he evi dence , “( 1) duty, ( 2) br eac h of thatduty, ( 3) nexus , caus at i on orpr oxi m at e ca us e, and ( 4) damages
. ” Moss , 935 So. 2d at406 ( ci t i ng May v. V. F . W . Post 2539 , 577 So. 2d 372, 375 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶ 4 0
. Ac c o r d i n g t o t h e M c Ke e s , “ [ f ] o rth e s e wi n d o ws t o h a v e r o t t e d wi th i n a two y e a r t i me f r ame, ther e w as negl i gence i nvol ved. ” B ow er s W i ndow r es ponds thati t“di d nothave anythi ng t o do w i th t he actual construct i on of [ the M cK ees ’ ] house[ , ] ” and “[ t ] he mer e ac t of s el l i ng w i ndow s chos en by the [ M cK ees ] i s notan ac tof ne gl i gence . [ ] A s admi t t ed by

22 [B ir d so n g ] , . . . w o o d en w ind o w s w ere so ld thro u g h o u t M issi ssipp i. ” In su m , B o w ers W i ndow cont ends thatt he M cK ees “r ai s e l ot s of ques t i ons aboutthe w i ndow s butneverhave p re s e n te d c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e irc la im s o r c re a te a n is s u e fo r a ju ry .” ¶4 1. T hi s Cour tf

i nd s tha tthe M c K e e s ’ n e gl i ge nc e c l ai m “f ai l [ s ] t o pr es entany new dis cussi on or cl ai m that does n ot r el at e b ack t o the
. . . p roducts li abil i ty cl ai m w hich ha[ s] pr evi ous l y been det erm i ned t o be l egal l y i ns uf f i ci entt o survi ve s um m ary j udgm ent . ” Moss , 935 So. 2d at406. T hus , thi s C our tconcl udes t hatsumm ary j udgm entw as pr oper l y ent er ed i n f a v o ro f Bo we r s W i n d o w o n th e M c Ke e s ’ n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m.

### 25

( 3) W ar r ant i es ¶42. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Pr oduct s L i abi l i ty A ct“does notabr ogat e a s t atut ory caus e of act i on fo r b re a c h o f im p lied w a rra n ty as g ro u n d s fo r re c o v e ry [,] ” o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a n y w a rra n ty
c la im s . B en n ett

v. Madak asira , 821 So. 2d 794, 808 (M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § § 1 1 -1 -6 3 [( R e v . 2 0 0 2 )], 7 5 -2 -7 1 5 [( R e v . 2 0 0 2 )]) , abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by Hut z el
v. Cit y of Jacks on , 3 3 S o. 3 d 1116 (M i s s . 2010)
. M or eover , the i m pl i ed w arr ant i es of
m er chant abi l i ty f

oran or di nary pu rpos e orf i tnes s f ora part i cul arpurpos e may notbe contr actual l y w ai ved “i n a s al e t o a cons um er. . . of cons um ergoods .
. . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 1 1 -7 -1 8 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). See al s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 2- 719( 4) ( R ev. 2002) ( “[ A ] ny l i mi t a t i on o f

r e medi e s whi c h w ou l d de pr i ve the b uy e ro f a r e medy t o w hi c h he m ay be ent i t l ed f

orbr eac h of

an i m pl i ed w arr anty of m er chant abi l i ty orfi t ness f ora part i cul ar p u rp o se sh a ll b e p ro h ib ited .”). H o w e v e r, “ [i]n M iss iss ip p i, ‘an a p p e llan t is n o t en tit led to
ra ise a n e w iss u e o n a p p e a l, sin c e to d o s o p re v e n ts th e tria l c o u rt fro m h a v in g a n o p p o rtu n ity t o addr es s the al l eged e r r or . ’ ” W est , 891 So. 2d at214 ( quot i ng Cr o we , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d at 30 5 ). See al s o Shaw , 603 So. 2d at292 ( “O ne of the mostf

undament al and l ong- es t abl i s hed rul es
o f l aw in M issi ssipp i i s th at th e [ap p ell ate c o u rt ] w il l no t r ev iew m att ers o n ap p ea l th at w ere
n o t r aised at th e tri al co u rtleve l. ”). ¶43. I n thi s cas e, the M cK ees never , ov er t he cou r s e of f i l i ng thr ee compl ai nt s , pl eade d cl ai m s f orbr eac h of

i m pl i ed orexpr es s w arr anty a gai ns tBow er s W i ndow
. T hi s cr i t i cal f act f undament al l y di s t i ngui s hes thi s cas e f r om the w arr anty deci si on s r el i ed upon by the M c K e e s . See D uett

L andf or m ing, I

nc. v. B el

z oniT r actorCo. , I

nc. , 34 So. 3d 603, 605 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( s ui tagai ns tm anuf actur erand s el l erof

tr act or s f

orbr eac h of

i m pl i ed

### 26

w a rra n ties o f m e rc h a n tab ili ty a n d fitn e ss fo r a p a rticu lar p u rp o se ); P arkerv. T hornton , 596 So. 2d 854, 85 5-56 (M i s s . 1992) ( hom eow ner s ’ s ui tagai ns tbui l di ng contr act oral l egi ng “br eac h of

expr es s and i m pl i ed w arr ant i es of mer chant abi l i ty[ , ]
. . . f i tnes s [ , ] ” and h ab it ab il ity ); N

or th R i verHom es, I

nc. v. B os ar

ge , 594 So. 2d 1153, 1158- 59 ( M i s s . 1992) ( compl ai nt“al l eged thatthe def endant s br eac hed var i ous w arr ant i es – expr es s , i m pl i ed, and f i tnes s [ , ] ” and the tr i al j udge i ns truct ed the j ury “on t he theor i es of br eac h of

i m pl i ed
w arr anty of

m er chant abi l i ty and f

i tnes s . . . . ”)
. O n thi s bas i s , thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe M cK ees ’ w arr anty c l ai m s a gai ns tBow er s W i ndow ar e pr ocedur al l y bar r ed
. See W

est , 891 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 4 ; Shaw , 603 So. 2d at292. CO NC L US I ON ¶4 4
. B ase d u p o n this a n a ly sis , this C o u rta ffi rm s the C ir cu itC o u rto f M ad ison C o u n ty’s “O r derG r ant i ng M ot i on t o E xcl ude Exp ertW i tness T est i m ony of W i l l i am B i r ds ong; ” “O r der G r ant i ng B ow er s W i ndow and D oorC o. , I nc. ’ s M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent ; ” and “ O r der G ra n tin g W e a th e r S h ie ld M a n u fa c tu ri n g , In c .’s M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t.” ¶45. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C. J. , CA R LSO N AN D DICK I N SO N , P. JJ . , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.