Construction Expert’s Testimony on Defective Flooring Excluded
Posted on November 21, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This dispute arises out of an interior design contract between Plaintiff Michael Lukacs and Purvi Padia Design LLC to provide interior design services for his 25,000 square foot home in New Jersey.
Lukacs alleged that PPD was contractually responsible to oversee his home renovation project. He further alleged that the installed work is subpar and he suffered damages as a result of inadequate oversight by PPD and poor installation by the subcontractors. According to Lukacs, the work is so flawed that everything must be torn out and replaced.
Plaintiff hired Paul Johnson (“Johnson”) as his proffered expert in construction and luxury home design.
On October 30, 2024, Johnson issued his written expert report, concluding, in part, that the flooring was defective due to poor installation. Additionally, during his deposition in this matter, on March 4, 2025, Johnson testified that hardwood damage was caused by installation failure.
Defendants filed a motion to preclude the testimony of Johnson. Specifically, Defendants asserted that Johnson’s conclusions are ipse dixit opinions, which conflict with previous opinions in separate cases regarding the same Property, and he failed to identify the basis for his conclusions.
Construction Expert Witness
Paul L. Johnson has decades of experience in the luxury home renovation industry. He is also the founder/operator of two successful construction firms.
Johnson provided construction services to the 5 General Services Administration of the Federal Government (GSA), maintained many 6 multi-million-dollar sales years, and served as the owner representative for a 13.2- 7 million-dollar construction/renovation project in Bethesda, MD.
Discussion by the Court
The Court found that under Rule 702 and Daubert, the testimony of Johnson was inappropriate and inadmissible.
Johnson’s October 2024 report consisted of four opinions. To begin with, Opinion 1 stated that PPD’s contract with Plaintiff made PPD the “primary entity responsible for oversight of the entire project.” This opinion, however, offered an improper legal interpretation of the contract as it sought to define Defendants’ duties under the contract.
Opinion 2 stated that Defendant Purvi Padia was “negligent and was the proximate cause of the significant damage to the Plaintiff’s home.” Opinion 2 suffered from the same fatal defect as Opinion 1 as it is a glaring improper legal conclusion.
Moreover, Opinion 3 concluded that “Padia and PPD misrepresented her abilities to Plaintiff and hid cost overruns known to her.” Johnson provided no basis for this opinion and his report failed to mention any specific misrepresentation made by PPD or Padia to Plaintiff.
Lastly, Opinion 4 relates to damages and avers that Plaintiff’s damages include, but are not limited by, the costs to: retain new design professionals; remove and replace all of the hardwood flooring; replace all stonework; and repaint the entire interior of the home. Johnson’s opinion regarding damages is unreliable as it is conclusory and not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case.
Johnson did not outline any reliable methodology, nor did he point to any industry standard within his opinion. Additionally, the Court emphasized that Johnson’s conclusions regarding damages, specifically the need to replace all of the hardwood flooring, are directly contradicted by another report he issued based on the same site examination in a separate lawsuit. This inconsistency is beyond conducting cross-examination at trial as Johnson’s conclusions are patently unreliable.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Paul L. Johnson.
Key Takeaway:
As an expert witness, Johnson was prohibited from rendering a legal opinion and could not opine on whether Padia was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to Plaintiff’s home.
Moreover, a juror can determine whether Defendants made misrepresentations to Plaintiff without the need for the specialized knowledge, skill, or training of Johnson.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Lukacs V. Purvi Padia Design LLC |
| Docket Number: | 2:21cv19599 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Jersey |
| Order Date: | November 18, 2025 |
