Joseph E. Williams and Nicole Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company; Lisa David; and Huelon Harrison ( 2021 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2020 CA 0787
JOSEPH E. WILLIAMS AND NICOLE WILLIAMS
VERSUS
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LISA
DAVID; AND HUELON HARRISON
CN O Judgment Rendered: MAR 1 12021
6IC141A
fjRj
On Appeal from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 679390
Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Judge Presiding
Zachary S. Walker Attorneys for Plaintiff A
- ppellants,
S. Bradley Rhorer Joseph E. Williams and Nicole
Baton Rouge, LA Williams
Charles L. Chassaignac, IV Attorneys for Defendant -Appellees,
Kellye R. Grinton State Farm Mutual Automobile
Matthew P. Roth Insurance Company and Lisa David
Baton Rouge, LA
BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.
Jo* I
T
Uv
t55e
ai'
HESTER, J.
In this case arising out of a motor vehicle accident, plaintiffs, Joseph E.
Williams and Nicole Williams, appeal a judgment of the trial court in their favor and
against defendants, Lisa David and her insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, awarding them general and special damages and legal interest,
but not awarding them damages for the diminished value of Mr. Williams' vehicle.
For the following reason, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 8, 2018, Mr. Williams was involved in a three -car accident in
West Baton Rouge Parish. On that day, Ms. David was driving her car west on
Highway 190 when she rear-ended a truck operated by Huelon Harrison. The impact
with Ms. David' s car propelled Mr. Harrison' s truck forward and into the back of
Mr. Williams' truck, a 2016 Ford F- 150. Mr. Williams and his wife, Mrs. Williams, I
filed a petition for damages against Ms. David and State Farm ( collectively " State
Farm"), and Mr. Harrison and his insurance company, Allstate County Mutual
Insurance Company (" Allstate").
The matter came before the court for a bench trial on February 19, 2020.
During the trial, the Williamses attempted to tender Mr. Alex Katz as an expert in
vehicle appraisals, specifically as to diminished value, to testify regarding the
diminished value of Mr. Williams' truck. After cross- examining Mr. Katz regarding
his qualifications, State Farm objected to Mr. Katz being qualified as an expert. The
trial court sustained State Farm' s objection and did not accept Mr. Katz as an expert
in vehicle appraisals and diminished value. The Williamses proffered Mr. Katz' s
testimony at the conclusion of the trial. On April 5, 2020, the trial court signed a
1 Mrs. Williams' claim was for loss of consortium. She was not in the truck with Mr. Williams
at the time of the accident.
2
judgment in favor of the Williamses and against Ms. David and State Farm as
follows:'
F] or $ 6, 000. 00 in general damages and $ 3, 500. 00 in special damages,
for a total of $9, 500. 00 in damages with legal interest thereon from
February 7, 2019 until paid; clerk costs in the amount $ 1, 940. 34 with
legal interest thereon from the signing of this judgment until paid;
expert fees associated with the trial testimony of James Sonnier, DC in
the amount of $1, 500.00 with legal interest thereon from the signing of
this judgment until paid; and costs associated with the deposition of
Lisa David in the amount of $282. 50 with legal interest thereon from
the signing of this judgment until paid.
It is from this judgment that the Williamses appeal, raising the following
assignments of error:
1. The trial court committed legal error when it considered State
Farm' s untimely motion to exclude [ the Williamses'] diminished
value expert, Alex Katz.
2. The trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Katz
was not qualified as an expert in the field of diminished value.
3. The trial court erred when it failed to award damages for the
diminished value of [Mr.] Williams' 2016 Ford F- 150 and failed to
tax State Farm with Katz' s trial testimony fee.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In their first assignment of error, the Williamses contend that the trial court
erred in considering State Farm' s objection to Mr. Katz as an expert because State
Farm failed to file a pre- trial motion in accordance with Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure article 1425( F) and its objection during trial was untimely. Article
1425( F)( 1) provides:
Any party may file a motion for a pretrial hearing to determine whether
a witness qualifies as an expert or whether the methodologies employed
by such witness are reliable under Articles 702 through 705 of the
Louisiana Code of Evidence. The motion shall be filed not later than
2 At the close of the Williamses' case, Mr. Harrison and Allstate moved for an involuntary
dismissal in their favor, contending that there was no evidence shown that Mr. Harrison was
responsible for the accident. The trial court granted the motion, and on March 11, 2020, the trial
court signed a judgment in conformance with its ruling, granting Mr. Harrison and Allstate' s
motion for involuntary dismissal.
3
sixty days prior to trial and shall set forth sufficient allegations showing
the necessity for these determinations by the court. ( Emphasis added.)
Article 1425 by using " may" permits a party to file a motion for a pretrial
hearing to determine if a witness qualifies as an expert, and the article sets out
mandatory deadlines within which the motion should be filed. See La. Code Civ. P.
art. 5053 ( The word " may" is permissive and the word " shall" is mandatory.).
However, Article 1425 does not mandate a pretrial motion to challenge the
qualifications of an expert.3 State Farm' s objection to the tender of Mr. Katz as an
expert during the trial was proper and was correctly considered by the trial court.
Therefore, we find no merit to the Williamses' first assignment of error.
In their second assignment of error, the Williamses contend that the trial court
abused its discretion when it determined that Mr. Katz was not qualified as an expert
in the field of diminished value.4 The admission of expert testimony is governed by
La. Code Evid. art. 702 which pertinently provides:
A. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion
or otherwise if -
1) The expert' s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue;
2) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
3 The cases cited by the Williamses in favor of their position, Adolph v. Lighthouse Prop. Ins.
Corp., 2016- 1275 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 8/ 17), 227 So. 3d 316, 320 and Crockerham v. Louisiana
Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 2017- 1590 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 21/ 18), 255 So. 3d 604, 610- 611 address the
procedure to challenge the qualifications of an expert in a motion for summary judgment, not a
trial on the merits.
4 Louisiana Revised Statutes 9: 2800. 17 states, in pertinent part:
Whenever a motor vehicle is damaged through the negligence of a third -party
without being destroyed, and if the owner can prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that, if the vehicle were repaired to its preloss condition, its fair market
value would be less than its value before it was damaged, the owner of the damaged
vehicle shall be entitled to recover as additional damages an amount equal to the
diminution in the value of the vehicle.
Article 702 creates a five -element test as to the admissibility of expert testimony.
Blair v. Coney, 2019- 00795 ( La. 4/ 3/ 20), So. 3d 2020 WL 1675992,
4.
The first element requires the expert witness to be qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Failure of the witness to qualify
as an expert pursuant to the introductory paragraph of Article 702( A) or failure of
the testimony to meet any of the indicia of reliability or relevancy set forth in
702( A)( 1) through (A)(4) will render the testimony inadmissible. Blair, So. 3d
at , 2020 WL 1675992, * 4.
It is well- established that the trial court is afforded wide discretion in
determining whether expert testimony should be admitted and who should or should
not be permitted to testify as an expert. Cheairs v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.
Dev., 2003- 0680 ( La. 12/ 3/ 03), 861 So. 2d 536, 541. The district court performs
the important gatekeeping role of ensuring " that any and all scientific testimony or
evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Cheairs, 861 So. 2d at 541,
589 ( quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113
S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 ( 1993)). Therefore, a trial court' s decision to qualify
or disqualify an expert will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Cheairs,
861 So. 2d at 541. In reviewing the trial court' s determination, this court must be
cautious not to substitute its own factual finding just because it may have decided
the matter differently. See Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge, 2014- 0964 ( La. App.
1 st Cir. 1/ 27/ 15), 170 So. 3d 186, 194.
Recently, in Blair v. Coney, the supreme court reinforced the discretion
afforded to the trial court as gatekeeper on issues of admissibility of Article 702
evidence. In Blair, the narrow issue was whether the court of appeal erred in
reversing the trial court' s order excluding the testimony of an expert under Article
702. The supreme court reversed the court of appeal and affirmed the trial court,
stating:
5
To be clear, we express no opinion as to whether Dr. Bain is qualified
to testify in biomechanics, injury causation analysis, or accident
reconstruction, nor do we opine, except as otherwise provided herein,
as to the reliability of the underlying methodology in general. Our
opinion is grounded in the discretion we afford the district court as
gatekeeper on issues of admissibility of C.E. art. 702 evidence, finding
no abuse of that discretion in this case.
Blair, So. 3d at , 2020 WL 1675992, * 9.
Prior to offering Mr. Katz as an expert, the Williamses' attorney questioned
him about his experience with vehicle appraisals and assessment of diminished
value. Mr. Katz testified that he is an auto broker with an independent car dealership,
and he appraises the value of vehicles " several times a day." He said that he has
been doing so for about fifteen years. When Mr. Katz was asked how often he
appraises vehicles that have been in car wrecks, he said it "comes up regularly" when
he is appraising vehicles for inventory and that he also does so when writing
diminished value claim reports. Mr. Katz testified that he has a dealer' s license
issued by the state of Louisiana, which allows him to sell vehicles to customers.
State Farm cross- examined Mr. Katz on his qualifications. During cross-
examination, Mr. Katz said that he has never been qualified as an expert in
diminished value but has written " several dozen" diminished value assessments. Mr.
Katz testified that he has never received any specialized training on calculation of
diminished value, but he said that is because there is no training on diminished value.
After examination by State Farm, the Williamses offered Mr. Katz as an
expert. State Farm objected based on " Mr. Katz' s experience level and the fact that
he doesn' t have any specialized training that would assist the trier of fact in this case
with regard to diminished value." The trial court sustained State Farm' s objection,
stating that it did not have enough information to classify Mr. Katz as an expert in
the field of diminished value. In so ruling, the trial court pointed out that Mr. Katz
has no curriculum vitae, has only given a " handful of reports," and his only
certification is as a dealer.
0
Considering the testimony of Mr. Katz as well as the trial court' s reasons for
excluding Mr. Katz as an expert, and considering the trial court' s gatekeeper role as
discussed by the supreme court in Blair, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
broad discretion in concluding that Mr. Katz was not qualified under Article 702 to
testify regarding diminished value. Accordingly, we find no merit to the Williamses'
second assignment of error.
Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding
Mr. Katz as an expert, we pretermit discussion of the Williamses' final assignment
of error regarding whether Mr. Katz' s proffered testimony established an award for
damages for the diminished value of Mr. Williams' 2016 Ford F- 150.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs
of the appeal are assessed to plaintiffs -appellants, Mr. Joseph E. Williams and Mrs.
Nicole Williams.
AFFIRMED.
7