Opinion ID: 2382418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Expert Opinion on Causation

Text: [¶ 21] Rivers' second argument in opposition to the entry of summary judgment is that the record does in fact contain evidence that the Firm's conduct caused Rivers' expectancy damages. In support of this argument, Rivers cites to the following opinion of its expert, John Rogers: I have not been provided with calculations concerning Dr. Rivers' alleged economic loss but, assuming that he can establish an economic loss by virtue of the fact that he was only allowed to build a 5,000 square foot building versus a 10,000 square foot building as well as the associated cost related to redesign, the fact that Dr. Rivers was not, in my opinion, properly counseled concerning the nature and effect of the Covenants would be a proximate cause of those damages. The district court rejected this evidence on the basis that it lacked foundation. We agree. [¶ 22] Rule 56 requires that an affidavit supporting or opposing a summary judgment motion must be made based on personal knowledge, set forth admissible facts, and show that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. W.R.C.P. 56(e). As noted above, the material presented to the trial court as a basis for a summary judgment should be as carefully tailored and professionally correct as any evidence which is admissible to the court at the time of trial. Braunstein, ¶ 13, 226 P.3d at 832. An affidavit that lacks foundation and specific supporting facts is inadequate for purposes of opposing a summary judgment motion. See Braunstein, ¶ 14, 226 P.3d at 832; Bangs, ¶ 24, 201 P.3d at 452-453 (affidavit insufficient for failing to state specific facts and for stating only categorical assertions of ultimate facts without specific supporting facts); Western Surety Co. v. Town of Evansville, 675 P.2d 258 (Wyo.1984) (affidavit containing significant opinions and conclusions that may be critical in the outcome of the case must reveal the underlying facts and basis); Blackmore v. Davis Oil Co., 671 P.2d 334 (Wyo.1983) (conclusory affidavit which does not contain specific facts indicating presence or absence of genuine issue of material fact is inadequate); Keller v. Anderson, 554 P.2d 1253 (Wyo.1976) (affidavit containing only affiant's conclusions and hearsay unsupported by competent material factual statements cannot be used by court in disposing of summary judgment motion). [¶ 23] As the district court observed, these are precisely the defects found in the affidavit opinion of Rivers' affidavit. The district court described the missing foundational facts as follows: It would be helpful to the trier of fact if the expert opinion could explain how the Defendant's breach of the standard of care caused the Plaintiff to not be able to build a larger building. The regulations prohibiting a 10,000 square foot building were a known limitation when the Plaintiff purchased the lot. It is obvious that the Plaintiff deliberately, and commendably, chose not to follow the Defendants' first recommendation of go ahead and build it. Let them sue you. However jaded this advice may have been, if followed, it would have produced the desired result along with the undesirable consequences of litigation. The other option, involving persuasion of both Smith's and the City was dependent in part on their acquiescence. The expert has not explained how the Defendants' efforts would have made the desired change of heart happen. As a result, his bald assertion that the Defendants' negligence caused the Plaintiff's damages is a conclusion unsupported by foundational facts and is inadmissible. W.R.E. 702; Hatch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 930 P.2d 382, 388-89 (Wyo.1996[1997]). [¶ 24] The conclusory opinion of Rivers' expert attempts to impermissibly shift Rivers' business loss to the Firm without showing that the loss suffered was in fact caused by the Firm's alleged malpractice. See Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 70 P.3d 1046, 1051-52 (2003) (causation must be shown before business loss may be shifted to attorney who performed underlying legal work); Gayhart v. Goody, 98 P.3d 164, 169 (Wyo.2004) (must establish attorney's conduct was legal cause of damages). The district court thus correctly rejected the evidence and concluded that Rivers' claim for expectancy damages must fail as a matter of law.