Expert Testimony on Vessel Seaworthiness Deemed Relevant to Causation
Posted on October 30, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff River Assets, LLC, a company organized under the laws of Illinois, is in the business of operating barges that transport bulk materials. In January 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 33-year-old “spud barge,” model DM-110.
River Assets and the DM 110 were insured under a Hull policy through U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (“USSIC”) through Continental Underwriters Ltd., LLC, with the barge and its equipment having a total scheduled value on that policy of $1,730,000.
On November 9, 2022, a tugboat operated by Defendant Knight Towing, LLC, began a voyage towing four barges, including the subject DM-110 owned by River Assets, across Mobile Bay en route to Orange Beach.
As the tow progressed, the DM-110 began to take on water and eventually on November 14, 2022, the DM-110 sank in shallow water, where it remained until salvage operations refloated the barge on November 23, 2022.
River Assets avers that the sinking was caused by the crew of the tugboat in that they “failed to exercise reasonable care in securing the tow and towing the DM 110 across Mobile Bay in adverse weather conditions.” Both parties hired surveyors who inspected the DM110 in the few months following the salvage operation to determine the extent of the damage and the cause of the incident.
River Assets sought an order excluding cumulative expert testimony on the part of Defendant, US Specialties Insurance Company. Specifically, US Specialties has offered both Kyle Smith and Guy Plaisance as marine surveyors to offer expert opinions in this matter. According to River Assets, both witnesses have similar qualifications, similar opinions and rely on the same information in forming those opinions.
Marine Surveyor Expert Witness
Kyle J. Smith has been a marine surveyor for over twenty years. He also has extensive experience as a licensed mariner. He has conducted hundreds of marine survey inspections and investigations, including preparing many expert reports.
Guy Pierre Plaisance is a certified marine surveyor with over thirty-five years of experience.
Discussion by the Court
River Assets filed its motion to exclude the testimony and opinions to the extent that they offer opinions that are cumulative of each other but does not state which expert should be excluded. River Assets did not dispute the admissibility of either expert’s report or potential testimony or dispute their qualifications.
Rather, River Assets contended that the experts’ testimony and opinions should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 702, arguing that “a Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of wasting time or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Similarly, USSIC argued that the respective experts have distinct qualifications. Specifically, “a review of Captain Plaisance’s CV reflects that, in addition to being a marine surveyor for over twenty years, he also has extensive experience as a licensed mariner.” By contrast, “Kyle Smith, on the other hand, has 38 years of experience in the marine business, but does not have mariner’s credentials.”
In this case, there is significant disagreement over valuation of damages and the causation of the sinking as it relates to the general condition of the DM-110 at the time of the sinking. Accordingly, there is reasonable probability that the testimony of Smith and Plaisance could be not only distinct but aid the factfinder in distinct issues dispositive to this matter. As a result, the Court found that the experts’ opinions regarding the subject vessel are all clearly relevant and connected to the facts concerning the issue of causation and valuation of damages for the sinking of the vessel.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude duplicative expert testimony.
Key Takeaway:
Expert testimony is properly excluded when it is not needed to clarify facts and issues of common understanding which jurors are able to comprehend for themselves. Though it may be true that the expert opinions both implicate the seaworthiness of the vessel, it does not mean that the information is not relevant to other claims, such as valuation and the condition of the DM-110 in and out of the water following the sinking. As a result, there is reasonable probability that the testimony of Smith and Plaisance could be not only distinct but aid the factfinder in distinct issues dispositive to this matter.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | River Assets, Llc V. Knight Towing, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv106 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Alabama Southern |
| Order Date: | October 10, 2025 |
