UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB,

BIRMINGHAM COUNTRY CLUB, and

BYLEN GOLF COMPANY, L.L.C. d/b/a

PINE TRACE GOLF CLUB,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA, PHOENIX

INSURANCE COMPANY, and TRAVELERS

INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-11290

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE

EXPERT REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH VARGAS [39]

Defendants bring this motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Dr. Joseph

Vargas. (Docket 39.) Plaintiffs filed a response (dkt. 53)1 and Defendants filed a reply (dkt.

45). The Court heard this matter on August 17, 2016. 

I. Background and Facts

This is a first-party property damage claim. Plaintiffs are three golf courses in metroDetroit: Bloomfield Hills Country Club ("Bloomfield"), Birmingham Country Club

("Birmingham") and Bylen Golf Company, LLC, d/b/a Pine Trace Golf Club ("Pine Trace";

together "Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiff golf courses"). On April 1, 2013, Defendant Travelers

 1 Upon Stipulation and Order, Plaintiffs withdrew their first filed Response, which was

at docket 43, and filed the current response at docket 53. 

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 2383
Property Casualty Company of America, issued a policy of insurance to Bloomfield. On

October 1, 2013, Phoenix Insurance Company issued a policy of insurance to Birmingham.

On January 1, 2013, Travelers Indemnity Company of America issued a policy of insurance

to Pine Trace. There is no dispute that the policies were in effect throughout the 2013-2014

winter. Each Plaintiff purchased, at an additional cost, the Eagle 3 Miscellaneous Property

Coverage ("Eagle 3 form"), which provided: "We will pay for direct physical loss of or

damage to Covered Property caused by or resulting from Covered Cause of Loss." (Eagle

3 Misc. Prop. Coverage § A, dkt. 53-1.) Covered Property includes "Golf Course Greens,

Tees, Fairways and Rough," and provides as a Covered Cause of Loss "Weight of snow,

ice or sleet." (Eagle 3 Misc. Prop. Coverage § A.3.b(13), dkt. 53-1.) 

Plaintiffs allege that during the winter of 2013-2014, thick heavy ice accumulated on

the greens at Plaintiff golf courses, allegedly 5 inches thick in some locations. (Photos.,

Pls.' Resp. Ex. 2, dkt. 53-1.) Plaintiffs allege that the weight of this ice killed the turfgrass

by prohibiting a gaseous exchange by the turfgrass, leading to anoxia, as opined by

Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Joseph M. Vargas Jr.

Plaintiffs submitted claims to Defendants for coverage pursuant to the Eagle 3 form

for the winterkill damage to the greens. Defendants denied coverage on the basis that the

weight of the ice did not kill the greens. Plaintiffs filed suit on April 6, 2014. (Dkt. 1.) In

addition to filing motions for summary judgment, Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Vargas's

opinion and testimony. 

2

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2384
II. Analysis

A. Whether Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Vargas's Report And Testimony Satisfy

Daubert's Reliability Requirement

Courts considering expert testimony examine admissibility within the context of

Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,

training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a)

the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the

testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product

of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the

principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. The United States Supreme Court has established that Rule 702

requires district courts to ensure that expert testimony “rests on a reliable foundation and

is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597

(1993); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (expanding

Daubert's analysis of expert scientific testimony to cover expert testimony based on

“technical” and “other specialized knowledge”). Rule 702 “imposes a ‘gatekeeping’ duty on

district courts [to] exclude unreliable and irrelevant evidence.” Meemic Ins. Co. v.

Hewlett–Packard Co., 717 F.Supp.2d 752, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (Edmunds, J.) (citation

omitted).

In its gatekeeping role, the Court is to consider the basis of an expert's opinion by

evaluating: (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether

it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate

and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (4)

whether it is generally accepted in a particular field; (5) "whether the experts are proposing

3

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 2385
to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of the research they have

conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions

expressly for purposes of testifying because the former provides important, objective proof

that the research comports with the dictates of good science." Smelser v. Norfolk So. Ry.

Co., 105 F.3d 299, 303 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted),

abrogated on other grounds by Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 151 F.3d 500

(6th Cir. 1998). 

An expert opinion that is based on scientifically valid principles will satisfy Rule 702,

while an expert's subjective belief on unsupported speculation will not. See Smelser, 105

F.3d at 303. Courts are not required to admit opinions or conclusions that are "connected

to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert." See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522

U.S. 136, 146 (1997). The party offering expert testimony must prove its admissibility by

a preponderance of the evidence. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10. 

Dr. Joseph M. Vargas Jr. is a professor of plant, soil and microbial ecology (plant

pathology) at Michigan State University, where he has 48 years of teaching experience in

plant pathology and has maintained teaching, research and extension responsibilities in

turfgrass pathology, resistance to fungicides, and biological control. (Vargas CV, Pls.' Resp.

Ex. 3, dkt. 53-1). Plaintiffs offer Dr. Vargas's report in the form of a letter dated December

16, 2015, containing his opinion, as well as his deposition testimony in support of his

opinion, and Defendants seek to exclude them on the grounds that they fail to satisfy

Daubert's reliability requirement. Defendants argue that the opinion is not based upon

factual information relating to the conditions experienced at the Plaintiff golf courses, there

4

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 2386
is no authoritative support for Dr. Vargas's opinion, and his opinion is nothing more than

ipse dixit. 

Dr. Vargas's report includes the following opinion: 

It is my opinion that the damage to the greens at Bloomfield Hills Country Club,

Birmingham Country Club and Pine Trace Golf Club that occurred during that

winter of 2013-2014 was directly caused by the weight of the ice on the greens

prohibiting gaseous exchange with the surface.2

(Vargas Letter Dec. 16, 2015, Defs.' Mot. Ex. 2, dkt. 39-2.) Dr. Vargas confirmed in his

deposition that this was and remains his opinion. (Vargas Dep. 31:18-32:18, Defs.' Mot. Ex.

1, dkt. 39-1.) Dr. Vargas also agreed that he stated this opinion to a reasonable degree of

scientific certainty. (Vargas Dep. 33:6-8; dkt. 39-1.) Dr. Vargas's expert report and

testimony include a discussion of "anoxia," which he defined as "technically . . . the lack of

oxygen in -- in an environment." (Vargas Dep. 38:25-39:2, dkt. 39-1.) He included the

following discussion regarding how it occurs and how the weight of ice can cause it: 

Poa annua is susceptible to damage under ice cover. The two most common

forms of injuries are crown hydration and anoxia or the lack of oxygen which

eventual (sic) leads to the production of two toxic gasses, ethyl butyrate and

butanol. Dr. James Beard conducted a controlled laboratory experiment (1)

showing the death of the Poa annua was beginning to occur after 60 days of

ice cover with even more death around 75 days. Whereas a Canadian field

study showed only 45 days was necessary for the death of the Poa annua to

occur (2). The death of the Poa annua that occurs under continuous ice cover

is believed to be primarily due to anoxia caused by the plants continuing to

respire and produce CO2 eventually eliminating the oxygen. This is then

followed by anaerobic bacteria producing gases like butanol and ethyl butyrate

which are toxic to the annual bluegrass (3,4). 

 2 Dr. Vargas's report further stated, "The facts and data I considered in forming my

opinions include: my experience, as indicated in my attached CV; the reference materials

footnoted in this report; the documents and reports of John Kaminski; and the documents

and pictures included in Plaintiffs' responses to Defendants' discovery requests." (Id.) As

Defendants point out, footnotes were not included. (dkt. 39-2.)

5

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 2387
Snow covered greens and greens with light, porous ice are able to exchange

gases with the surface air and under these conditions remain aerobic and there

is minimal if any turf loss. However, when the ice becomes too thick and heavy

on the greens there is no gaseous exchange with the surface. When the ice

layer is thick and heavy, as occurred in the winter of 2013-2014, the weight of

the ice presses against the surface of the green resulting in limited space for

air between the green and the ice and the system soon becomes anaerobic.

The heavier the ice the less area there is for oxygen to occur and the sooner

the system becomes anaerobic. The Kaminski report indicated that there was

between 3 to 5 inches of ice on the Greens at Bloomfield Hills Country Club.

I observed similar thickness of ice layers on the golf courses I visited. 

(Vargas Letter, Dec. 16, 2015, dkt. 39-2.) 

Plaintiffs do not dispute and the Court agrees that Dr. Vargas's testimony reflects

"scientific knowledge." Further, Defendants do not argue that Dr. Vargas is not "qualified"

to offer opinion testimony. As agreed at the hearing, there is no dispute that Dr. Vargas's

testimony, if reliable, would be relevant. Defendants instead argue that the topics covered

by Dr. Vargas relate to scientific issues and principles, yet Dr. Vargas testified in the

negative when asked whether there was authoritative support for aspects of his opinion,

and whether he could identify peer-reviewed research results, scientific articles, and other

scientific evidence to support his opinion that the weight of ice caused anoxia and caused

damage to the greens. (Defs.' Mot. 7-8, dkt. 39; Vargas Dep. 34:13-38:24, dkt. 39-1.) 

Plaintiffs admit that "it is true there is no authoritative literature supporting Dr. Vargas'[s]

opinion that the weight of the ice on the greens caused their death by anoxia, there is also

no authoritative literature refuting this opinion. . . . [T]he literature is simply silent on this

issue." (Pls.' Resp. 4, dkt. 53.) Of those factors which the Court should evaluate, for

example, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been

subjected to peer review and publication; its known or potential error rate and the existence

and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and whether it has

6

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 2388
attracted widespread acceptance in a particular field, Dr. Vargas does not provide this

information in support of his opinion. 

Yet the "test of reliability is 'flexible,' and Daubert's list of specific factors neither

necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case." Kumho Tire Co., 526

U.S. at 141. "Rather, the law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides

how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination."

Id. at 142 (citing General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1997) (emphasis in

original). "Daubert makes clear that the factors it mentions do not constitute a 'definitive

checklist or test.' And Daubert adds that the gatekeeping inquiry must be 'tied to the facts'

of a particular 'case.'" Id. at 150 (citations and quotations omitted). Kumho makes clear that

the court can "neither rule out, nor rule in, for all cases and for all time the applicability of

the factors mentioned in Daubert, . . . . Too much depends upon the particular

circumstances of the particular case at issue." Id. Further, as set forth in Daubert, 

"General acceptance" is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of

scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the Rules of

Evidence-- especially Rule 702-- do assign to the trial judge the task of

ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is

relevant to the task at hand. Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid

principles will satisfy those demands.

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597.

Plaintiffs argue that under these standards, the lack of scientific literature to support

Dr. Vargas's opinion is not fatal, and Plaintiffs' primary argument, in bold in their response

brief, is that "Dr. Vargas'[s] reliance on his personal experience, in light of no supporting

or refuting authoritative literature on this issue, complies with Daubert and MRE (sic) 702,

and does not form the basis to strike his testimony." (Pls.' Resp. 6); see also Daubert, 509

7

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 2389
U.S. at 598 (the Court noting that the "inquiries of the District Court and the Court of

Appeals focused almost exclusively on 'general acceptance,' as gauged by publication and

the decisions of the other courts," and vacating and remanding for further proceedings).

Plaintiffs argue that trained experts like Dr. Vargas commonly extrapolate from existing data

and may properly do so. See e.g., General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 

In support of Dr. Vargas's methodology, Plaintiffs point out that he had inspected ice

on the greens of three other Metro-Detroit golf courses during the 2013-2014 winter, and

"[t]here was a foul odor coming out from under the ice as it was being removed indicating

an anaerobic condition had occurred." (Vargas Letter, Dec. 16, 2015, dkt. 39-2.) In his letter

opinion, Dr. Vargas noted that at these other courses, the damaged areas mirrored where

the ice was present, and it was 'not typical of crown hydration damage where the annual

bluegrass emerges from under the ice appearing to be healthy." (Id.) In an affidavit, Dr.

Vargas further testified that at these other courses, the "foul odor indicated an anaerobic

condition had occurred, which was anoxia of the turfgrass from the weight of the ice on the

greens." (Vargas Aff. ¶ 6, Pls.' Resp. Ex. 8, dkt. 53-1.) Dr. Vargas also testified as to the

basis for his opinion:

Q. Is your opinion just based upon what you believe based upon your years

of experience?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you performed any repeatable study or experiment which supports

your opinion?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of anyone else who has performed a repeatable study or

experiment which supports that opinion?

8

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 2390
A. No. 

. . . .

Q. Can you explain the process that you followed in arriving at your opinions

with regard to these specific three golf courses?

. . . . 

A. Okay. All right. First, I went to, you know, three different courses, okay, and

observed how thick and heavy the ice was, okay, and formed my opinion

actually there. And then I was shown the pictures of Bloomfield Hills,

Birmingham, and Pine Trace, and it was very similar to what I observed at

the three courses that I went to. So based on that, my opinion was that it

died, also, that they died also from the heavy ice on top of the turf and the

anoxia that occurred underneath there. 

Q. And what is it about the pictures you looked at as to these three golf

courses that led you to this opinion?

A. The fact that in many cases the entire green was dead, okay, number 1.

There was -- including the creeping bentgrass, okay, that was in it; and, I

guess, number 2, there just wasn't any green grass there when the ice was

finally removed.

Q. Yeah, but those two things you described, first, in many instances the

entire greens were dead, and second, there wasn't any green grass there

when the ice was finally removed, couldn't those conditions be present just

by virtue of the existence of anoxia, but not necessarily with respect to the

weight of the ice causing anoxia? 

. . . . 

A. It was an -- anoxia did kill the greens, okay, and I guess I believe it was

because of the -- you know, the weight or heaviness of the ice that limited

any gaseous exchange, but – 

(Vargas Dep. 34:13-38:24, dkt. 39-1.)

Plaintiffs also rely on the opinion of Dr. Kevin Frank, Associate Professor at Michigan

State University, as consistent with Dr. Vargas's; Dr. Frank stated his belief that "weight of

ice is a directly correlated factor in causing winterkill." (Frank Letter July 22, 2014, Pls.'

Resp. Ex. 6, dkt. 53-1.) They argue that this shows that Dr. Vargas is not the only turfgrass

expert who believes the weight of ice can and did cause winterkill to Michigan golf courses

9

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 2391
by anoxia. (Pls.' Resp. 5.) Plaintiffs also allege that the rarity of such a severe ice event

contributes to the lack of scientific literature on this issue, as Dr. Vargas testified:

Q. So have you seen other examples of where golf courses have had their

greens damaged by anoxia in years other than the '13-'14 winter?

A. Yes, and it was way back. I think it was either 1980 or '81. We had a big ice

storm on New Year's Eve, and it left 3, 4, 6 inches of ice everywhere on the

greens throughout this area.

Q. So it was the only other time that you've personally observed --

A. Yes. 

Q. -- anoxia--

A. Anoxia.

Q. -- damage to greens?

A. Yes.

(Vargas Dep. 73:24-74:12.) 

To the extent that Defendants point out that Dr. Vargas had not observed the Plaintiff

golf courses in person, this alone is not fatal Dr. Vargas's opinion. Plaintiffs show that Dr.

Vargas had documentation about the greens of the actual courses at issue on which to

base and from which to infer his opinion. For example, in his letter opinion, he notes that

"[t]he Kaminski report indicated that there was between 3 to 5 inches of ice on the greens

at Bloomfield Hills Country Club," and that Dr. Vargas has observed similar thickness of ice

layers on the golf courses he had visited. (Vargas Letter Dec. 16, 2016, dkt. 39-2.) Experts

are permitted to opine even without firsthand knowledge or observation as long as, "the

expert's opinion [has] a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline."

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592. 

10

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 2392
Despite the possibly novel opinion Dr. Vargas reaches, his opinion is based on over

40 years of teaching about and experience with plant pathology including winterkill in

turfgrass, and his extrapolation of the information he had about Plaintiffs' golf courses. The

Court finds that Dr. Vargas made an allowable inference from this information, and his

opinion is reliable, relevant and admissible. 

B. Whether Dr. Kaminski's Report Demonstrates that Dr. Vargas's Report Is

Unreliable

Defendants argue that their own expert Dr. Kaminski's report demonstrates that Dr.

Vargas's investigation was flawed and incomplete, and he failed to address research

relevant to the issue of the weight of ice causing anoxia. (Defs.' Mot. 18.) Defendants argue

that Dr. Kaminski's report discusses evidence that the greens at Plaintiff golf courses were

encased in ice during the 2013-2014 winter, and that Dr. Vargas had testified that he did

not know whether they were encased in ice and agreed that "if they were encapsulated"

maybe the explanation in his report would not still apply. (Vargas Dep. 92:16-23.) 

Dr. Kaminski also relies on a 2009 study in which the author "reported that the buildup

of toxic gases butanol and ethylbutyrate resulted in the loss of annual bluegrass in an

experiment with no ice. Their research involved the use of 'simulated ice cover' in which

they covered plants with plastic bags and removed all oxygen. . . . The authors reported

death of the annual bluegrass in as few as 25-30 days. . . . This study . . . , further verifies

that weight of ice is not a contributing factor as they subjected the plants to anoxia in the

absence of ice and therefore any weight pushing down on the plant." (Kaminski Report,

Apr. 15, 2016, at 5, dkt. 39-3.) As Plaintiff points out, Dr. Kaminski's contradicting opinion

11

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 2393
goes to the weight of Dr. Vargas's opinion and testimony, not its admissibility, and is not

a reason to exclude Dr. Vargas's testimony.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein and on the record, the Court DENIES Defendants'

Motion to Exclude The Expert Report and Testimony of Dr. Joseph Vargas (dkt. 39). 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 30, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on August 30, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

12

2:15-cv-11290-NGE-APP Doc # 58 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 2394