Safety Expert Witness’ Opinions on OSHA Protocols and Procedures Admitted
Posted on February 11, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The present case involves an insurance coverage dispute between an East Texas church, Plaintiff Christian Heritage School c/o Youth With a Mission, and its insurance company, Central Mutual Insurance Company. Between May 1, 2020, to May 1, 2022, Defendant insured Plaintiff’s property, which consisted of a twenty-one building campus in Tyler, Texas. The dispute arises from alleged storm-related damage with a date of loss on April 5, 2022.
Plaintiff designated Kevin Dandridge of Line Safety as a retained expert to testify as to the proper Occupational Safety and Health Administration (‘OSHA’) protocol and procedures that must be implemented when repairing and/or replacing Plaintiff’s property.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude Dandridge from offering testimony as to (1) the cost for OSHA compliance for repairs to claimed damage on the campus sustained on April 5, 2022; or (2) the cost for OSHA safety protocols and procedures for buildings that he did not inspect.
Safety Expert Witness
Kevin Dandridge completed 510 and 500 OSHA certifications. He is able to certify students in 10 and 30‐hour courses. He has a bachelor of science degree in business management from the University of Phoenix in 2008.
Discussion by the Court
Inclusion of a Line-Item Cost Sheet was Not Prejudicial to Defendant
While the majority of Dandridge’s report mostly relates to OSHA safety concerns and protocols, the last ten pages of his report, however, outlines the line-item costs associated with OSHA compliance.
The Court has to decide whether this is outside the scope of testimony for which he has been designated. Dandridge was designated as an expert to testify as to the proper OSHA safety protocol and procedures that must be implemented when repairing and/or replacing Plaintiff’s property.
Because the designation includes implementations for repair/replacement, it logically follows that Dandridge would have included a line-item cost sheet for adhering to OSHA compliance protocols. Thus, the Court cannot say that the inclusion of such a sheet was inherently prejudicial to Defendant in this case or that Defendant was not fairly apprised of this. Indeed, the sheet was disclosed in Dandridge’s report and Defendant deposed Dandridge and specifically inquired about the generation of the cost sheet.
Dandridge’s Opinion is Not Unreliable Because He Conceded that his Cost Report includes a Sheet that is simply an “Example” and is not Final Pricing
Defendant argued that Dandridge’s opinion is unreliable because he conceded that his cost report includes a sheet that is simply an “example” and is not final pricing. Defendant also pointed out that Dandridge admitted that OSHA compliance may have already been included in some construction estimates, but he did not examine any estimate to determine to what extent those costs were already accounted for.
The fact that Dandridge included a cost sheet in his report as exemplary does not make his opinions on OSHA safety protocols and procedures inherently unreliable. Indeed, the Court held that such a fact is precisely an issue that goes to the weight of his opinions, not the admissibility.
Lastly, Defendant wanted to limit Dandridge’s testimony to the buildings he actually inspected because he only inspected 11 buildings, but the lawsuit included 20 buildings. Plaintiff responded by pointing out that Dandridge has limited his opinions to only the 11 buildings he inspected. Thus, the issue appears to be moot as Plaintiff agrees his testimony is limited to these 11 buildings, and Defendant does not address this response in its reply. Nonetheless, the Court held that the inspection of 11 buildings alone is not a basis to exclude Dandridge’s testimony.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to strike the testimony of Kevin Dandridge.
Key Takeaways:
- The line-item costs associated with OSHA compliance was disclosed in Dandridge’s report and Defendant deposed Dandridge and specifically inquired about the generation of the cost sheet. Thus, the Court cannot say that the inclusion of such a sheet was inherently prejudicial to Defendant in this case or that Defendant was not fairly apprised of this.
- Defendant’s attack on Dandridge using a “not final” cost sheet in his report was misplaced because Dandridge was designated to provide expert testimony on OSHA safety protocols and their associated costs, not to provide final cost estimates.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness Properly Justified the Inclusion of OSHA Compliance Costs
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Christian Heritage School c/o Youth With A Mission V. Central Mutual Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 6:24cv45 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division |
| Order Date: | February 6, 2025 |
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness Properly Justified the Inclusion of OSHA Compliance Costs
