There is seldom such a thing as an absolute truth. Everything we see and hear causes us to come to a conclusion about what we have seen or heard based upon our own experiences up to that point.
I thought I’d start the day by cutting my “to-post” list in half by grouping the various responses on motions related to the testimony of and reports from expert witnesses in Gagne v State Farm – and introduced the subject with a quote that offers my I’m-not-a-lawyer understanding of what an expert opinion provides.
Each of these Responses, however, relies in some fashion on the understanding of the requirements established under and/or expanded from Daubert, quoted here from Gagne’s response re: Wiggins:
Experts are not required to establish scientific certainty or any particular level of certainty for their opinions to be admissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc…It is only necessary for the opinion be sufficiently reliable to have a tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the expert opinion. See Tug Danielle M. Bouchard v. Oryx Energy Co…
Defendant State Farm wants the Court to exclude the testimony and/or reports produced in support of Gagne by Jerry Wiggins, Richard Henning, Michael Dombrowski, Donald Dinsmore, and E. J. Dennis – five total – oops, make that six – and last but by no means least, Neil Hall.
Plaintiff Gagne, on the other hand, wants the Court to exclude the testimony and opinions not fully disclosed of State Farm’s expert Dr. Robert Dean.
In other words, pour yourself another cup of coffee and settle in for what can not be a quick read.
Let’s start with the one that just blew me away – Gagne’s Response to State Farm’s motion to exclude the testimony and report of replacement cost expert Jerry Wiggins – and what blew me away. Wiggins used Xactimate to calculate replacement cost – creating what Times-Picayune reporter Rebecca Mowbray might call same house, same software, different result and what I call evidence of the Scheme. Continue reading ““We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are” – the “expert witnesses” of Gagne v State Farm”