Opinion ID: 4556331
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of the Experts

Text: In Daubert, the Supreme Court explained that trial courts must act as “gatekeepers” and are tasked with screening out “speculative, unreliable expert testimony.” Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 613 F.3d 1329, 1335 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). In that important role, trial courts may consider a nonexhaustive list of factors including: (1) whether the expert’s theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential error rate of the technique; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community. Kilpatrick, 613 14 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 15 of 24 F.3d at 1335. Later, in Kumho Tire, the Court explained that the gatekeeping function governs all expert testimony, including “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” not just singularly scientific testimony. 526 U.S. at 14749. The factors identified in Daubert “do not constitute a definitive checklist or test.” Kumho, 526 U.S. at 150 (internal quotation marks omitted). Admittedly, they are designed to guide a district court’s assessment of the reliability of scientific or experience-based expert testimony. Id. But, the district court’s “gatekeeping inquiry must be tied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The goal of gatekeeping is to ensure that an expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Id. at 152. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides: 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. 15 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 16 of 24 F.R.E. 702. “We have distilled from Daubert, Kumho, and Rule 702 these three requirements: First, ‘the expert must be qualified to testify competently regarding the matter he or she intends to address’; second, the expert’s ‘methodology . . . must be reliable as determined by a Daubert inquiry’; and third, the expert’s ‘testimony must assist the trier of fact through the application of expertise to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.’” Kilpatrick, 613 F.3d at 1335. To be sure, experience, standing alone, is not a “sufficient foundation rendering reliable any conceivable opinion the expert may express.” U.S. v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1261 (11th Cir. 2004). Even experienced experts “must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.” Id. at 1261 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee note (2000 amends.)). “[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146.
The district court found that Posada, the audio and lighting expert, was qualified, but concluded that his methodology was unreliable. (Doc. 146 at 7, 10). We agree. Berries failed to establish that Posada’s methodology was reliable. 16 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 17 of 24 Posada listened to the audio system and looked at the lighting system in 2018. From this brief inspection, he opined that any damage was caused by construction dust and debris from 2014. Posada identified what he thought to be the only diagnostic test to determine the reason why a speaker or light would not work, but he did not perform that test because “it [wa]s more cost effective to replace the system.” (Doc. 108-1 at 24-34, 55-56). Posada performed no testing that would permit him to conclusively determine that the dust he observed in 2018 came from much earlier road construction. To the extent it can be said that Posada even identified a methodology for reaching his conclusions, he provided no testimony (or anything else) from which the district court could have concluded that his methodology was in any way reliable. See Kilpatrick, 613 F.3d at 1335 (the expert’s “methodology . . . must be reliable”). Nothing about Posada’s methodology is capable of being tested or being subjected to peer review, and Berries presented no evidence indicating that Posada’s technique is generally accepted in the scientific community. Kilpatrick, 613 F.3d at 1335. Under Daubert, a “district judge asked to admit scientific evidence must determine whether the evidence is genuinely scientific, as distinct from being unscientific speculation.” Chapman, 766 F.3d at 1306. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Posada’s testimony provided nothing 17 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 18 of 24 more than speculation about the cause of the damage to the audio and lighting systems.
The district court found that Thompson was at least minimally qualified as an expert based on his years of experience, but concluded that “Thompson’s testimony is nothing more than unexplained assurances and unsupported speculation.” (Doc. 146 at 12). Again, we agree. Berries did not establish that Thompson’s opinions are reliable. Like Posada, Thompson merely visually inspected the awnings and retractable roof, and did not do so until more than two years after the road construction. (Doc. 108-3 at 26-29, 34-37). Thompson observed a broken drive belt on the retractable roof, but candidly admitted he could not say what caused it to break. (Doc. 108-3 at 71). Although Thompson did not test the retractable roof system, he determined that it had to be replaced. (Doc. 109-3 at 1). This conclusion was based on Thompson’s knowledge that parts for this system could no longer be obtained in the United States. (Id.). And, although Thompson performed no testing on the sediment on the awnings and retractable roof two years after the construction ended, he nonetheless opined that it came from that construction. (Id.; 108-3 at 27, 44-45). 18 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 19 of 24 Again, to the extent that Thompson even employed a methodology, there was nothing against which that methodology could be compared to determine whether it was reliable or even scientific in nature. See Chapman, 766 F.3d at 1306 (recognizing the court must ensure the “evidence is genuinely scientific, as distinct from being unscientific speculation.”). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Thompson’s testimony as unreliable.
Berries offered Brizuela as a cause and origin expert. He opined as to the source or origin of the damage to the restaurant. Brizuela opined that “[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.” (Doc. 109-5 at 7). In reaching this conclusion, he conducted a visual inspection of the restaurant, again over two years after the road construction ended. He conducted no sampling or testing of the dust and sediment he found at that time. His “methodology” was simply observation and a review of photographs. (Doc. 108-5 at 116). Brizuela gave a scientific explanation about the general issue of how dust and debris can damage property. But, even if one accepted the general proposition that construction dust and debris can damage or corrode property, Brizuela did not actually attribute any damage to the restaurant as a result of that circumstance. (Doc. 146 at 12-15). His “methodology” in this respect consisted of an assumption. 19 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 20 of 24 Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Brizuela’s proposed testimony as unreliable under Daubert. Here, given its considerable leeway in assessing expert testimony, the district court did not err in concluding that Berries failed to establish that its experts’ methodologies have been (or, for that matter, can be) tested. Berries also failed to show that its experts’ methodologies have been subjected to peer review and publication. Berries also failed to address the known or potential error rates of its experts’ techniques. And, Berries failed to establish that its experts’ techniques are generally accepted in the scientific community. Simply stated, Berries did not satisfy any of the factors which indicate a reliable and admissible expert opinion. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the experts. See Kilpatrick, 613 F.3d at 1335. The district court correctly excluded the expert opinions proffered by Berries and this inexorably led to the swing of the summary judgment axe. “[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect.” Jones v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citation omitted). Berries relied on the expert reports of Brizuela, Thompson, and Posada to prove that the “new” damages to Berries’ awnings, retractable roof, and audio and lighting system, first claimed in 2018, were caused by construction dust and debris from 2014. That is, it 20 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 21 of 24 was necessary for Berries to tie the damages it claimed in 2018 to construction occurring during the much earlier policy period, ending on September 19, 2014. Without the properly excluded experts’ testimony, the district court properly granted Sparta summary judgment on Berries’ newly claimed damages. B. Berries Failed to Show any “Direct Physical Loss or Damage” Under Florida law, the interpretation of an insurance contract, including resolution of any ambiguities contained therein, is a question of law to be decided by the court. Dahl–Eimers v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 986 F.2d 1379, 1381 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Sproles v. Amer. States Ins. Co., 578 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)). In construing an insurance contract, a court must strive to give every provision meaning and effect. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000); Excelsior Ins. Com. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So. 2d 938, 941 (Fla. 1979). A party claiming coverage (here, Berries) generally bears the burden of proof to establish that coverage exists. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Bove, 347 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 3rd DCA. 1977). The policy at issue is an “all risks” policy. However, as the Florida Supreme Court has noted, “an ‘all-risk’ policy is not an ‘all loss’ policy, and thus does not extend coverage for every conceivable loss.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 696-97 (Fla. 2016) (citation omitted). 21 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 22 of 24 Berries’ initial claim had two components: one for cleaning the restaurant, and another for Business Income Loss. (Doc. 110-10). The insuring agreement in the policy’s Building and Personal Property Coverage Form states that Sparta “will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” (Doc. 110-1 at 31). The policy’s Business Income Coverage Form provides that Sparta will pay for “the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary ‘suspension’ of your ‘operations’ during the ‘period of restoration.’” (Id. at 46). The “‘suspension’ must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property. (Id.). Florida’s District Court of Appeals for the Third District has addressed the definition of “direct physical loss”: “A ‘loss’ is the diminution of value of something []. Loss, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). ‘Direct’ and ‘physical’ modify loss and impose the requirement that the damage be actual.” Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. v. Maspons, 211 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); see also Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2020 WL 1950831, at  (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). With regard to the cleaning claim, Berries’s public adjuster, Inguanzo, testified that “cleaning and painting” was all that was required. (Doc. 76-1 at 3536). He also testified that there was no need for removal or replacement of items at that time. (Id. at 36). Based on this testimony, the district court held that Berries 22 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 23 of 24 had failed to establish that it had suffered a “direct physical loss” as that term is defined under Florida law. (Doc. 146 at 18-19). We conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Berries’ cleaning claim because, under Florida law, an item or structure that merely needs to be cleaned has not suffered a “loss” which is both “direct” and “physical.” See Maspons, 211 So. 3d at 1069 (recognizing that “damage [must] be actual”); Vazquez, 2020 WL 1950831, at  (same). See also Universal Image Prods., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 475 F. App’x 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[C[leaning . . . expenses . . . are not tangible, physical losses, but economic losses.”); MRI Healthcare Ctr. of Glendale, Inc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 187 Cal. App. 4th 766, 779, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 27, 37 (2010) (“A direct physical loss ‘contemplates an actual change in insured property.”); AFLAC Inc. v. Chubb & Sons, Inc. (2003) 260 Ga.App. 306, 581 S.E.2d 317, 319 (same). As to the Business Income Loss claim, the Business Income Coverage Form requires that a “suspension” of operations “be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property.” (Doc. 110-1 at 46). Again, as discussed above, even if Berries had shown a “suspension” of operations, Berries did not put forward any Rule 56 evidence that it suffered a direct physical loss of or damage to its property during the policy period. Therefore, the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Berries’ Business Income Loss claim was also proper. Berries failed to show it suffered a “direct physical loss.” 23 Case: 18-12887 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 Page: 24 of 24 C. Berries Did Not Establish that it Suffered a Covered Suspension of Operations The policy’s Business Income Coverage Form provides that Sparta will pay for “the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary ‘suspension’ of your ‘operations’ during the ‘period of restoration.’” (Id. at 46). Berries argues that the district court erred when it held that Berries did not suffer a “suspension” of its operations, and when it ignored evidence that Berries had been required to close sections of the restaurant for cleaning. Conceivably, a slowdown caused by closing parts of the restaurant for cleaning could be attributed to a “period of restoration.” But, even if Berries is correct that the district court got this part of the analysis wrong, Sparta was still entitled to summary judgment on the Business Income Claim because any “‘suspension’ must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property.” Berries failed to show it suffered a “direct physical loss.” (Id.).