IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY A/S/O )

THOMAS AND NADINE BRUHN, )

) C.A. No.: N14C-07-076 ALR

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

HH GREGG, INC., and )

3PD HOLDING, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

Date Submitted: November 30, 2015 

Date Decided: December 17, 2015

Upon Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude or Limit 

The Report and Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert,

Kenneth R. McLauchlan, P.E., CFEI

DENIED

This matter arises from damages sustained by Nationwide Mutual Insurance 

Company (“Plaintiff”) from providing insurance coverage to their insured, Thomas 

and Nadine Bruhn (“Insured”), as a result of alleged negligence by HH Gregg, Inc. 

and 3PD Holding, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff contends that 

Defendants – in installing a new refrigerator in the home of Insured in December 

2012 – were negligent in their installation of water lines to the new refrigerator, 

their replacement of the refrigerator, and in failing to properly train or supervise 
2

the installation of the water lines to the refrigerator such that it caused damage to 

Insured’s water lines and residence. 

Plaintiff proposes to present the testimony of an expert witness, Kenneth 

McLauchlan, P.E., CFEI, a forensic engineer who personally inspected Insured’s 

residence and relevant parts of the refrigerator. Mr. McLauchlan also took 

photographs. Mr. McLauchlan’s expert opinion rules out any design or 

manufacturing defects with the water supply line, which is the opinion of 

Defendants’ expert witness. Instead, Mr. McLauchlan’s expert opinion is that the 

water supply hose was damaged when Defendants installed the refrigerator. 

Defendants have filed a motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of 

Plaintiff’s expert. Defendants do not contest Mr. McLauchlan’s qualifications. 

Rather, Defendants argue that Mr. McLauchlan’s opinion is scientifically 

unsupported. 

At the trial level, it is the role of the Court to perform a gatekeeping function 

with expert testimony.1

 The admissibility of such testimony is governed by 

Delaware Rule of Evidence 702, which provides: 

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the 

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, 

a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 

training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or 

otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, 

 1 Sturgis v. Bayside Health Ass’n, 942 A.2d 579, 583 (Del. 2007).
3

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, 

and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to 

the facts of the case.

2

Delaware has adopted the Daubert standard to determine whether an expert 

has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. 

Under this standard, the trial judge may consider the following factors: 1) whether 

the theory or technique has been tested; 2) whether it has been subjected to peer 

review and publication; 3) whether a technique has a high known or potential rate 

of error and whether there are standards controlling its operation; and 4) whether 

the theory or technique enjoys acceptance within a relevant scientific community.3

In addition to the Daubert factors, Delaware requires the trial judge to 

consider an additional five-step test to determine admissibility of expert 

testimony.4

 The trial judge must determine that: 

(1)the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 

training or education; 

(2)the evidence is relevant;

(3)the expert’s opinion is based upon information reasonably relied upon by 

experts in that particular field;

(4)the expert testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence 

or determine a material fact in issue; and

(5)the expert testimony will not create unfair prejudice or confuse or 

mislead the jury.5

 2 D.R.E. 702

3 Sturgis, 942 A.2d at 584 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 

(1993)). 

4 Id.

5 Id.
4

The Court is satisfied that Mr. McLauchlan’s expert opinion is based upon 

information reasonably relied upon by experts in that particular field, including Mr. 

McLauchlan’s personal inspection. Mr. McLauchlan’s testimony and report is 

relevant and will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and determining a 

fact in issue – the cause of the damage to Insured’s water lines and residence. The 

Court finds that the probative value of Mr. McLauchlan’s testimony substantially 

outweighs any prejudicial effect. Defendants’ concerns regarding Mr. 

McLauchlan’s testimony go to its weight and not its admissibility and Defendants 

can effectively cross-examine Mr. McLauchlan at trial. 

NOW, THEREFORE, this 17th day of December, 2015, Upon 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude and/or Limit the Report and 

Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert, Kenneth R. McLauchlan, P.E., CFEI, is 

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli

Hon. Andrea L. Rocanelli