Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Ruptured Pipe

Plaintiffs, BME Fire Trucks LLC (“BME”) and 223 Roedel Avenue LLC’s (“Roedel”), brought this action against their insurer, Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company (“Cincinnati”), seeking damages caused by a ruptured natural gas pipeline.

On October 31, 2022, BME submitted a claim to Cincinnati, and Cincinnati retained Brian Hansen of Northwest Investigative Engineering to inspect the property. On November 16, Hansen met with BME’s facility technician, conducted an on-site inspection, and examined the pipeline. The following day, Hansen issued an engineering report, in which he concluded a construction defect caused the pipe to corrode, resulting in the rupture.

Plaintiffs challenged the admissibility of Hansen’s expert opinions. These challenges include that Hansen is not qualified; he did not base his opinions on sufficient facts; he failed to explain his method; and he opined on a legal conclusion.

Engineering Expert Witness

Brian Hansen has a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered professional engineer in eight states, including Idaho.

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

Discussion by the Court

The Court disagreed that Hansen’s opinions are inadmissible. The record reflected that Hansen is qualified as an expert for purposes of opining on the issues in this case. During his deposition, he testified that he has had an Idaho professional engineering license since 1999; he has been retained thousands of times to investigate insurance claims; and he has practical experience involving utilities from his practice as a mechanical engineer and his prior work experience with Zilog where he was “in charge of chemical delivery [and] specialty gas delivery systems.”

Further, the Court found that Hansen’s opinions are supported by sufficient facts and data and the product of a reliable method. According to Hansen’s report, he conducted an on-site inspection, interviewed the facilities technician, examined the ruptured pipe and the trench in which it was located, and took photographs.

Additionally, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that Hansen’s reliance on the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the National Fire Protection Association standards was inadmissible legal analysis.

Hansen’s opinions did not address substantive legal issues. For example, he is not opining on how to interpret the Policy’s language. Rather, he is opining on the applicable industry standards for burying a gas pipeline, which is not a matter of substance law nor an issue this Court can rule on as a matter of law.

Held

The Court declined to rule that Cincinnati’s expert, Brian Hansen’s opinions are inadmissible.

Key Takeaway

While instructing the jury as to the applicable law is the distinct and exclusive province of the Court, experts may opine on industry standards.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	BME Fire Trucks LLC V. The Cincinnati Casualty Company
Docket Number:	1:23cv321
Court Name:	United States District Court, Idaho
Order Date:	December 01, 2025