Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Lost Retirement Income

David Cox served in the Navy as a pipefitter and shipfitter from 1970 to 1974 and was a pipefitter and insulator employed by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1987. Cox was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2022 and died less than two weeks later. Jean C. Cox, his widow, as the Administratrix of his estate and in her own right, has brought survival and wrongful death actions against Defendants John Crane, Inc. ("John Crane") and Watts Regulator Co. ("Watts"). She asserted in her second amended complaint that her late husband's death resulted from his exposure to asbestos contained in John Crane's packing and gasket materials as well as Watts' steam traps and pressure reducing valves on various Navy ships on which he worked.

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's damages expert Royal A. Bunin, M.B.A.

Economics Expert Witness

Royal A. Bunin holds a Master of Business Administration from Temple University. He is an actuarial economic consultant who has provided services to the legal profession since 1983. He previously taught economics at two different universities.

Want to know more about the challenges Royal Bunin has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Bunin has calculated the economic damages arising out of Cox's death, specifically lost retirement income, lost household services, and medical expenses. Defendant argues that his opinions do not fit this case because he made his calculations in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Defendant maintains this action is governed by general maritime law, that is maritime common law, which in its view have different rules for damages.

The Plaintiff does not contest that this action is governed by general maritime law. She counters, however, that the damages about which Bunin will testify are properly recoverable under Pennsylvania law.

Cox was employed by the Navy as a pipefitter and insulator who was allegedly exposed to asbestos from the products of John Crane while he worked on various ships at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Defendant does not cite any statute related to damages under maritime jurisdiction to preclude Bunin's testimony. Defendant does not rely, for example, on the Jones Act, which provides remedies for seamen injured or killed in the course of employment, or the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), which provides remedies for those killed on the high seas beyond the territorial waters of the United States.

Plaintiff has not brought this action under the Jones Act or DOHSA. This is an action under general maritime law. As noted, there is undisputed evidence that Cox was a maritime worker. However, Plaintiff does not assert that he was also a seaman. The parties have not called to the Court's attention any evidence, for example, that Cox ever went to sea between 1974 and 1987, was a member of the crew of any vessel, or that the ships on which he worked at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard were in navigation.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a maritime worker and a seaman are not necessarily synonymous. It would be mere speculation, based on the present record, to find that Cox, while a maritime worker, was a seaman when he was exposed to the asbestos products of John Crane.

The Court rejected Defendant's challenge to the testimony of Plaintiff's expert Royal Bunin based on his damage calculations under Pennsylvania law. His testimony fits this action.

Defendant further challenged the reliability, including the methodology, of Bunin even if Pennsylvania law applies. The Court found Defendant's arguments unpersuasive and will not preclude his testimony on this basis.

Held

The Court denied the motion of Defendant John Crane Inc. to exclude the testimony of Royal A. Bunin, MBA.

Key Takeaway

Scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes, and there must be a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry for an expert opinion to be admissible.

Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

Naval Architecture Expert Allowed to Opine on Warning Requirements and Practices

Case Details: