Expert's Gut Feeling Good Enough

By IMS ExpertServices

Although expert opinions must be based in fact, they are still individualized opinions and are occasionally, as the New Jersey Appellate Court stated on July 5, based on an expert’s “gut feeling”.

In a construction claim case involving real estate valuation, expert witness J. Anthony Dowling admitted to basing his opinion on a “feeling of costs”. The testimony in Nevins v. Toll Brothers, Inc. reveals that approximately 90 percent of Dowling’s cost estimations were “gut feelings” without any data tying them to the plaintiff’s specific location or project. You can read a portion of the exchange between defense counsel and Dowling in this blog post on the decision.

Because Dowling is a professional construction cost estimator and has sufficient credentials to serve as an expert witness, the appeals court found his opinion to be valid testimony. The other factor influencing the decision was the precedent of similar testimony admitted in a similar case.

Despite this ruling, other cases suggest there is a trend toward requiring a more factual basis for expert testimony. Numerous cases have addressed the issue of what is, and is not, admissible testimony according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert and other standards. The common theme is a demand for more detail and more specific analysis related to the facts of the case.

For example, earlier this year the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a $388 million verdict based on the expert’s method for determining a reasonable royalty rate. In this damages case, the court concluded that the 25-percent rule was “fundamentally flawed” in its lack of a factual groundwork.

“[The expert’s] starting point of a 25 percent royalty had no relation to the facts of the case, and as such, was arbitrary, unreliable, and irrelevant,” Judge Linn wrote in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation. “The use of such a rule fails to pass muster under Daubert and taints the jury’s damages calculation.”

This case addressed the larger issue of methodology while other recent rulings address the type of expert testimony admitted.

In 2010, a product liability case involving a $21 million jury verdict was overturned when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the expert’s testimony fell on the wrong side of “the often-elusive line between admissible opinion and inadmissible speculation.”

"Because the 'knowledge' requirement of Rule 702 requires 'more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation,'" Judge Sutton wrote in Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Company, "the testimony should have been excluded."

Despite these two recent cases demanding experts base opinions on facts, Dowling’s testimony based on “gut feeling” was admitted in Nevins. Although the court acknowledged that Dowling’s expert reports and testimony should not serve as a guide to any future expert, the New Jersey Appellate Court stated that “whether [Dowling’s opinion] is a convincing opinion is a question for the jury.”

Do you think that Dowling's testimony should have been admitted?


IMS ExpertServices

IMS ExpertServices delivers consultative trial and expert services for the most influential global firms. Over nearly three decades and through more than 20,000 cases and well over 1,000 trials, clients have trusted IMS to equip them with the perspective and tools they need to help their clients succeed. With offices in the San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas, Pensacola, and New York, the company provides trial strategy consulting, jury consulting, trial graphics consulting, trial presentation consulting, and expert witness recruitment and management. IMS has earned nine consecutive rankings on the Inc. 5000 list, won recognition by The National Law Journal in six categories of its “Best of 2020” awards, by Corporate Counsel Magazine as winner in eight categories of its “Best of 2019” awards, and as “Go-To Thought Leader” for two consecutive years by The National Law Review.

Get the best expert

Fill out the form and one of our representatives will be in touch with you shortly. Or, you can call or email us directly.