Opinion ID: 4556331
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Berries’ Experts

Text: Berries relied on three experts to causally link its newly-claimed damages to the construction dust and debris generated more than two and a half years earlier, i.e., during Sparta’s policy period ending on September 19, 2014. First, Alex Posada offered opinion testimony about Berries’ audio and lighting systems. Second, Christopher Thompson opined about the awning and retractable roof systems. Third, Alfredo Brizuela proffered his opinion about “engineering” and “the cause and origin of the loss.” (Doc. 105-1 at 5-6; Doc. 113 at 2-4).
Posada’s firm, United Audio, had “been in the audio and special lighting industry for over 15 years providing integrated audio, video, lighting & control solutions. . . .” (Doc. 109-1 at 2). Posada’s proposed methodology included performing a “QC diagnostic” which would have involved, among other things, “[d]ismantl[ing] all Audio & Lighting Equipment, . . . [t]est[ing] all existing wiring and terminations[,] [d]isassembl[ing] each and every speaker and lighting fixture[],[t]est[ing] all audio devices[, and] [e]xamin[ing] all components in every lighting fixture.” (Id. at 2-3; Doc. 108-1 at 51-53). However, Posada did not perform the QC diagnostic. (Doc. 108-1 at 53). Rather, in February 2018, he performed a two-hour site inspection and concluded that “it [wa]s more cost effective to replace the system.” (Id. at 24-34). 7 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 8 of 24 At Posada’s deposition, the following exchange occurred: Q: So is it fair to say if you want to find out a specific reason why a speaker or light is not working, you have to run this diagnostic? [] A: It’s an option. Q: What other options are there? A: There are no other options . . . it[’]s either this or replace it which, I mean -- as of looking at it, I can already tell you it’s not going to be worth doing this. Q: If you want to find out the specific reason why a subwoofer or speaker or light is not working, do you need to perform the diagnostic? A: It’s an option. Yeah Q: But are there any other options? A: No, there is no other option. Q: That’s the only option? A: That is correct. (Doc. 108-1 at 55-56). Posada’s inspection consisted of visually observing some of the system’s audio and lighting components, and listening to some of its audio components. (Doc. 109 at 3; Doc. 108-1 at 51-53). Posada did not inspect all of the restaurant’s speakers and components because some were out of reach and, during his inspection, there were patrons in the restaurant whom he did not wish to disturb. (Doc. 108-1 at 24-25, 31-39). He only walked around the perimeter of the restaurant. (Id. at 34). Posada testified that 8 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 9 of 24 the speakers outside the restaurant’s entrance were “probably” damaged, and although he did not inspect the subwoofers, he assumed that they were not working. (Id. at 43, 68-69). Posada nevertheless testified that all of Berries’ audio systems were damaged by construction dust and debris, to the exclusion of all other causes, because they produced sounds that were “tedious,” “distorted,” and “hard to explain in words.” (Id. at 88, 93-94). Posada’s inspection of Berries’ lighting system involved observing components from ground level, about 15 feet below the fixtures. (Id. at 45). Posada testified that the lights did not turn on at all and were “full of dust.” (Id. at 33, 4445). Although he opined that the light fixtures’ motherboards were damaged, Posada conceded that he could not see those components, and did not inspect them. (Id. at 87-88, 97-98). He did not know the age of the lighting fixtures, or when they stopped working. (Id. at 76, 87).
Thompson is employed by Awnings of Hollywood, the company that originally installed the awnings and retractable roof “several” (i.e., “more than three [-] four”) years before his inspection. (Doc. 108-3 at 17-18, 32-33). Thompson’s inspection of the restaurant’s awnings and retractable roof consisted of a visual inspection from the ground floor, and lasted approximately one hour. (Doc. 108-3 at 29, 34, 83). His inspection took place more than two years after the 9 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 10 of 24 roadwork ended. (Id. at 26-29, 34-37). He did not take notes. (Id. at 34). Based on his one-hour inspection, Thompson concluded that the awnings and retractable roof systems were damaged beyond repair by sediment that he “assumed” was construction dust. (Id. at 46, 54; Doc. 109-3 at 1). Thompson took no samples of the sediment, and did no testing to determine its origin. (Doc. 108-3 at 45-46). Thompson had eaten at the restaurant during the road construction. (Doc. 108-3 at 46). Thompson did not test the retractable roof system because he observed that the drive belt was broken. (Doc. 108-3 at 69). But, the belt was the only thing Thompson observed that was broken. (Id. at 69-70). In his report, Thompson noted that the system had to be replaced, rather than repaired, because the components were no longer available in the United States. (Doc. 109-3 at 1; Doc. 108-3 at 69). When asked why the drive belt snapped, Thompson testified: “I could not tell you. I have an opinion, but I couldn’t tell you seriously.” (Doc. 108-3 at 71).
Brizuela has a degree in architecture and structural engineering, and is a Florida licensed civil and structural engineer. (Doc. 108-5 at 26-27). His inspection of the restaurant consisted of a one-hour visual inspection conducted in December 2017 and a review of photographs taken in 2014 and 2015. (Doc. 108-5 at 42, 7677). He also ran his “fingers across” dust (which he believed was construction 10 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 11 of 24 dust), although it had been over two years since the construction had been completed. (Doc. 108-5 at 45, 57-59, 115, 154). Based on this inspection, he offered the following opinion: [I]t is evident that the source of the damage was from the nearby roadway construction on 27th [A]venue in front of the property. Simply stated, the migration of the dust and its resulting paste was a sudden and accidental occurrence that damaged the equipment, awning, windows, railings, and stucco. (Doc. 109-5 at 7). Brizuela’s report explains how construction dust combined with water can be corrosive. (Doc. 108-5 at 117). But, on the question of the source of the corrosive material in this case, Brizuela acknowledged that his “testing was strictly [his] observation through [his] inspection and [his] review of the photographs.” (Doc. 108-5 at 116). That is, Brizuela did nothing other than touch the dust and look at pictures before opining as to its origin. (Id.). His opinion, like Thompson’s, was based on his assumption that the construction dust was the source of the corrosive material. (Id.). 2. The District Court’s Decision Ruling on the Motions in Limine Regarding Berries’ Experts In April 2018, Sparta filed a motion to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses: Posada, Thompson, and Brizuela. (Doc. 105). That same day, the parties filed Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 106, 110). After briefing, the district court entered an omnibus order granting Sparta’s Daubert and summary judgment motions. (Doc. 146). The district court found that, although 11 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 12 of 24 Berries’ causation experts were minimally qualified to render their opinions, their methodologies on the issue of causation were unreliable or nonexistent, and their testimony was speculative. (Id. at 5-15). The district court further concluded that, without expert testimony, Berries could not prove that construction dust and debris generated in 2014 caused the “new” damages (first claimed in 2018) to Berries’ awnings, retractable roof, HVAC system, railings, and audio and lighting system. (Id. at 15-17). The district court determined that Berries’ initial claim for cleaning was not covered because property that must be cleaned, but is not damaged, has not sustained a “direct physical loss.” (Id. at 17-19). The district court also concluded that direct physical loss refers to tangible damage to property, which causes it to become unsatisfactory for future use or requires repairs. (Id. at 17-19). Finally, the district court decided that Berries’ claim for lower-than-expected sales in 2014 was not covered because Berries could not establish that it suffered a “necessary ‘suspension’” of its “operations” as the result of a “direct physical loss.” (Id. at 1920). Because of its determinations, the district court declined to address any of the parties’ arguments related to the policy’s exclusions or limitations. (Id. at 16, n. 14). This appeal followed. 12 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 13 of 24