Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where a policyholder alleged that over $385,000 in jewelry fell overboard during a boat ride, the jury will hear from an expert witness that it was improbable that the boat’s motions could have caused the jewelry to be launched overboard and that the wave heights during the alleged loss period were not large enough to crest over the bow of the boat. These technical issues are not within the everyday knowledge and experience of a lay juror.
Background
Antonie Pierre Gray alleges that: (1) plaintiff owned jewelry that had a value of at least $386,423.00; (2) State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was contractually obligated to indemnify and cover plaintiff for any loss of or damage to the jewelry and (3) on or about May 2, 2022, the jewelry was accidentally lost while plaintiff was on a boat in the James River.
Defendant identified Michael Venturella as a potential expert witness at trial. According to his expert report, Mr. Venturella intends to opine that: (1) it is improbable that the boat’s motions could have caused the jewelry to be launched overboard; (2) the wave heights during the alleged loss period were not large enough to crest over the bow of the boat and (3) if the transom door was unlatched at the time of the alleged loss, it is improbable that the transom door was in an open position while the boat was accelerating forward and pitching aft.
Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine to exclude Mr. Venturella. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Venturella’s opinions address facts that are within the jury’s knowledge and experience. Second, plaintiff argues that Mr. Venturella’s “opinion that the force created by the waves was not sufficient to propel the jewelry overboard is not reliable as it does not consider the weight of the Jewelry at issue.”
Scope
Rule 702 permits the exclusion of expert testimony if the court determines that the expert’s scientific, technical or otherwise specialized knowledge would not help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Here Mr. Venturella’s opinions: (1) analyze meteorological data from buoys; (2) explain the forces exerted on the boat and the impact on the boat’s contents and (3) apply that information to the facts of this case. The court concludes that these technical issues are not within the everyday knowledge and experience of a lay juror.
A careful review of the report confirms that Mr. Venturella’s opinions do not simply state the obvious when they are stripped of their technical gloss. Instead, Mr. Venturella’s opinions touch on technical matters such as the boat’s motions, projectile motions (i.e., kinematics), wave motion, planning hull trim, hydrodynamic lift and the design and operation of the boat, including the rear transom door.
Opinion
Plaintiff argues that Mr. Venturella’s failure to factor in the weight of the jewelry in his calculations of the force required to launch the jewelry off the boat made his opinion unreliable. This contention is belied by Mr. Venturella’s sworn declaration that he “considered the weight and dimensions of the [jewelry],” however “the weight of the jewelry has no relevance to [his] opinion that [the boat’s] motions did not cause the [jewelry] to be launched over the side of the [boat].” Mr. Venturella explains that the weight of the jewelry is irrelevant to his opinion because “[i]n the application of uniform acceleration projectile motion equations, the motion of the projectile is independent of mass, as the projectile is acted only by the downward gravitational acceleration.”
The court concludes that: (1) Mr. Venturella’s opinions appear to be based on facts, a reasonable investigation and traditional technical/mechanical expertise; (2) Mr. Venturella provides a reasonable link between the information and procedures he uses and the conclusions he reaches and (3) plaintiff’s argument is not sufficiently developed to exclude Mr. Venturella’s opinions at this time. As a result, any concerns raised regarding Mr. Venturella’s opinions must be addressed by plaintiff at the trial of this matter.
Credibility
While Mr. Venturella will be permitted to offer his opinions at the trial of this matter, his testimony shall not directly or indirectly reference plaintiff’s credibility and/or the consistency of plaintiff’s descriptions of the events that is the subject matter of this contractual dispute. At trial, determinations regarding the reliability and credibility of any witness fall squarely and solely within the province of the jury.
Plaintiff’s motion to exclude denied.
Gray v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-679, May 4, 2023. EDVA at Richmond (Colombell). VLW 023-3-241. 12 pp.
