Construction Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Issues Regarding Contract Formation
Posted on May 23, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This is a consolidated case involving alleged improprieties in the payment and performance of certain equipment fabrication and associated work on two beef processing projects. Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action against its former employee, Michael Chapple, in relation to such work: (1) tortious interference with business expectancy; (2) tortious interference with contract; (3) civil conspiracy; (4) breach of contract with respect to Chapple’s employment agreement; (5) breach of the duty of loyalty; and (6) repayment of wages.
Defendant Tom’s Metal Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Industrial Metal Enterprises, LLC (“IME”) retained Lin Heath. Plaintiff sought an order excluding
testimony of Heath, that (1) consists of legal conclusions and/or (2) lacks evidentiary support.
Construction Expert Witness
Lin Heath is a Professional Engineer, a Certified General Contractor in the State of Florida; Certified Cost Professional; Certified Construction Contract Administrator, a Certified Forensic Claim Consultant, and a PMI Scheduling Professional.
His 47 year career in Construction Management and Construction Engineering includes hands on administration with concentration in construction management information systems and project management.
Discussion by the Court
An issue in this case is the terms of the contract by which IME fabricated parts for Plaintiff to use in the Demkota Project. Plaintiff maintained that the agreement was for a fixed price, which IME exceeded. IME’s position is that the agreement was on a time and materials basis with no monetary limit.
Legal Conclusion
Heath sought to testify that the contract between Plaintiff and IME was for work on a time and materials basis.
Whether the contract was issued on a time and materials basis is a legal question about a key term of the agreement. The Court held that Heath has no demonstrated legal expertise, let alone expertise in ascertaining what these parties intended. Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence that contracts in the meat rendering plant industry conform to particular practices or that the parties in this case were expected or intended to conform to such practices.
Absent some such fixed points of reference in the industry, Heath’s opinions about documents and information he would expect to find or other opinions about the agreement from “a contract administration perspective” are irrelevant.
In addition, to the extent it recites evidence about what Plaintiff did and did not do, and what IME and Plaintiff did and did not notice, what Plaintiff and Morris claim and do not claim and whether their claims are reasonable, Heath’s testimony is not necessary or helpful to the trier of fact.
Methodology
The Court held that Heath’s “Reasonable and Necessary Cost Study” identified no methodology or industry-wide standard from which to determine the necessity or reasonableness of the amounts which IME billed.
Absent an identified methodology, based in science or industry-wide norms and practices, Heath’s opinion represents nothing more than an ipse dixit. Presumably, IME project documents would not confess that work was unnecessary and charges were excessive, and Heath does not explain how summarizing the project documents shows that work actually was necessary and that charges actually were reasonable.
Held
The Court sustained the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lin Heath.
Key Takeaway:
The Court can provide appropriate guidance on contract law without Heath’s assistance or testimony and the forgoing facts are well within the competence of a jury unassisted by Heath’s experience in other transactions.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Haarslev, Inc. V. Tom’s Metal Enterprises, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv2569 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Kansas |
| Order Date: | May 21, 2025 |
