“It is a rare case in which the parties’ expert witnesses will agree on how physical evidence should be interpreted, and this is not one of those rare cases.”
Judge Senter’s decision was not exactly a surprise given his earlier Order referencing the testimony of Ralph Sinno but his Order and Memorandum of Opinion are nonetheless welcome news:
The Court has before it the motions [298] [715] of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) to exclude the testimony of R. Ralph Sinno, Ph.D. (Sinno), one of the Relators’ expert witnesses. For the reasons set out below, this motion will be denied.
Sinno is trained as a civil engineer. His opinions concern the “Structural Response of the Property of Mr. And Mrs. Thomas McIntosh During Hurricane Katrina.” Sinno has made extensive engineering studies concerning the effect of hurricane force winds on buildings, and he relies on these studies along with his formal training as an engineer in forming his opinions…
The purpose of a motion challenging the qualifications of an expert is not to test the ultimate validity or credibility of the expert’s opinion. That is the job of the finder of fact on a complete record. The purpose of this type of motion is to test whether the expert is qualified by training and experience to form the opinions he holds, to test whether those opinions are supported by factual interpretations and conclusions that are at least arguably sound, i.e. based on substantial evidence and reasonable assumptions, and to test whether the expert has reached his opinions using methodology and principles that are generally accepted in the expert’s field… Continue reading “Breaking News! Judge Senter denies State Farm’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Ralph Sinno – a Rigsby qui tam update”