Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Collapse of the Retaining Wall
Posted on October 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This matter arises out of the collapse of a retaining wall at the home of Plaintiffs Pranav Mishra and Mamta Mishra. The Mishras sued Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for breach of contract and bad faith failure to pay their resulting insurance claim. State Farm filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Scott Skipper because (1) it is not based on reliable methodology, (2) it does not assist the trier of fact, and (2) the Mishras did not comply with the obligations of the Scheduling Order or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
On February 3, 2023, Skipper wrote a letter to Pranav offering several theories as to the retaining wall’s collapse. Skipper agreed there was inadequate drainage behind the retaining wall and the wall was structurally unsound.
Skipper issued a report on June 21, 2024, which State Farm received just one day before Skipper’s deposition. His report noted that the February 2023 letter “was not intended to be a technical analysis. It was intended to convey an alternative theory only.” Skipper’s June 2024 report stated that on the night the wall collapsed, 1.55 inches of rain fell and he was “of the opinion that with the shallow footing of the failed wall and its position on the side of the sloping terrain, groundwater would likely migrate beneath the wall, and we would be doubtful impoundment of water behind the wall would be a major issue.”
Skipper concluded that the retaining wall, even with the deficiencies noted, has held fast for more than 17 years.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness
Scott Skipper is a registered engineer and land surveyor. He obtained his Bachelor of Science in civil engineering in 1986 from the University of Alabama.
Discussion by the Court
State Farm challenged the reliability of the methodology underlying Skipper’s expert report. It argued (1) Skipper initially visited the Property to determine how to repair it, not to determine the cause of the collapse, and (2) Skipper did not investigate the cause of the failure but instead relied on his familiarity with the Property based on his visits in early 2023 to determine how to repair the retaining wall.
The record before the Court did not reflect that Skipper’s opinion was reached through a methodology that satisfied the Daubert factors. Instead, it appeared that Skipper’s testimony was based primarily on his general experience with the geography surrounding the Mishras’ residence. The Court cannot discern what, if any, scientific methodology Skipper applied to either his initial letter or June 2024 report. Notably, Skipper testified that his February 3, 2023 letter was not intended to be a technical analysis but instead was meant to convey a “possibly plausible theory.” This is the type of “subjective belief [and] unsupported speculation” prohibited by Daubert.
The June 21, 2024 report is similarly deficient because he apparently arrived at his conclusions based on “just living on the river my whole life.”
Because Skipper’s testimony is due to be excluded on reliability grounds, the Court did not reach State Farm’s arguments regarding Skipper’s alleged lack of opinions or the Mishras’ alleged failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Held
The Court granted State Farm’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Scott Skipper.
Key Takeaway:
Unlike a lay witness, an expert may offer an opinion, including one that is not based on firsthand knowledge or observation. This relaxation of the usual requirement of firsthand knowledge “is premised on an assumption that the expert’s opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.”
The Mishras have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Skipper’s causation opinion is reliable because it is testable, peer reviewed, or generally accepted. Nor does the record reflect the known error rate for Skipper’s opinion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Mishra Et Al V. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv1537 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division |
| Order Date: | September 25, 2025 |
