--- title: "Construction Expert’s Testimony on Project Delays Admitted" meta: "og:description": "The construction expert was allowed to opine on project delays despite not using the method opposing counsel would select" "og:title": "Construction Expert’s Testimony on Project Delays Admitted" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The construction expert was allowed to opine on project delays despite not using the method opposing counsel would select" --- # Construction Expert’s Testimony on Project Delays Admitted Posted on November 7, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff ZP No. 332, LLC hired Defendant Huffman Contractors, Inc. as the general contractor on a real estate development project. Huffman allegedly failed to complete the work adequately, and ZP eventually declared a default on the construction contract. That gave the parties’ surety, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, several options under a performance bond. From those options, Travelers chose to take over Huffman’s contract, hire subcontractors, and finish the project. ZP claimed that Travelers did not fulfill the construction contract adequately after it took over and sued both Huffman and Travelers for breach of contract. ZP promised to prove the cause of the property’s lost value (_i.e._, Huffman and Travelers’s alleged delays) through a forensic scheduling expert, [Kevin Coyne](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kevin-Coyne/1568883). Huffman filed a _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ motion to exclude Coyne’s testimony. ## **Construction Expert Witness** [Kevin Coyne](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Kevin-Coyne/1568883), P.E., PSP has more than 20 years of construction management, project controls and construction claims experience. He has been invited to speak throughout North America on a variety of engineering and construction topics and has served as a guest lecturer in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering at George Mason University. [Want to know more about the challenges Kevin Coyne has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1568883&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** Coyne is a ‘forensic scheduler’ who purports to have performed a “detailed causation analysis” regarding alleged construction delays. Huffman lodged three categories of complaints about Coyne’s expected testimony: (1) He does not use what Huffman claims is the best available method; (2) his analysis disregards facts in Huffman’s favor, such as evidence that ZP itself may have been responsible for some delays; and (3) his opinions are too favorable to ZP.  First, Huffman argued that Coyne “did not cite” “the most recognized industry standard” for the form of analysis he used. After reviewing his report and the opinions of Huffman’s rebuttal expert, the Court found that the principles and methods Coyne used are more likely than not reliable. Huffman is welcome to argue to the jury that Coyne should have taken a different approach. Coyne discussed at length how he validated the data sources he relied on, and the Court finds that the facts that underlie his opinions are more likely than not sufficient. Therefore, cross-examination—not exclusion—is the solution to Huffman’s concerns about how Coyne handled facts allegedly unfavorable to ZP’s position.  Huffman also asserted that Coyne’s “one-sided opinions” made his testimony “inadmissible.” To the extent that argument is about Coyne allegedly ignoring evidence that ZP itself may have contributed to project delays, it is simply the same contention addressed above, wearing a different mask, and the Court has already concluded that Huffman’s concern goes to weight, not admissibility. Insofar as Huffman raises a new issue here, it fails because credibility is a question for the jury, not a matter for a _Daubert_ motion or summary judgment.  ## **Held** The Court denied Huffman’s motion to exclude the testimony of Kevin Coyne. ## **Key Takeaway:** While an expert’s testimony must be based on “good grounds” and constitute “more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation,” neither  [Fed. R. Evid. 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.) nor _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ requires an expert to use the method opposing counsel would select or even the best or most recommended method.  ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/construction-experts-testimony-on-project-delays-admitted/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/construction-experts-testimony-on-project-delays-admitted/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/construction-experts-testimony-on-project-delays-admitted/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/construction-experts-testimony-on-project-delays-admitted/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/construction-experts-testimony-on-project-delays-admitted/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)