Westfield Insurance Company v. TPI Corporation et al
Filing
149
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Defendant Richardson Electric, Inc.'s Thirteenth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Robert Markiewicz under Daubert 133 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 02 August, 2018 03:38:00 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
WESTFIELD INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, )
as Subrogee of Onken’s Inc.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICHARDSON ELECTRIC, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)
No. 15-cv-3055
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Richardson
Electric, Inc.’s (Richardson) Thirteenth Motion in Limine to Exclude the
Expert Testimony of Robert Markiewicz (Markiewicz) under Daubert (d/e
133) (Motion). The parties consented to proceed before this Court.
Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge
and Reference Order entered October 13, 2017 (d/e 129). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, Westfield’s subrogee, Onken’s, Inc. (Onken’s) had a metal
warehouse building (Building) constructed. In December 2004, Richardson
performed electrical work in the Building. At that time, two electrical
Page 1 of 14
infrared heaters (Heaters) were being installed in the northwest portion of
the Building. The Heaters hung from the ceiling. Westfield claims that
Onken’s personnel hung the Heaters from the ceiling and ran electrical
lines from the Heaters to the electrical panels in the Building, but did not
connect the Heaters to the electrical panels. Westfield states that
Defendant Richardson’s personnel connected the Heaters to the electrical
panel. Richardson denies that its personnel connected the Heaters to the
electrical panels. Richardson claims that the Heaters were already
connected and operating when its personnel performed other electrical
work at the Building. See Order entered May 30, 1017 (d/e 111) (Order
Denying Summary Judgment), at 3-5.
On February 9, 2011, a fire (Fire) broke out in the Building, causing
significant damage. Westfield claims that a defective heating element in
one of the Heaters caused the fire. See Order Denying Summary
Judgment, at 5-6. Westfield brings a claim in this action against
Richardson for negligent installation of the Heaters. See Complaint (d/e 1),
at 48-51. Richardson denies liability. Westfield disclosed Markiewicz as
one of its expert witnesses. Markiewicz is an electrical engineer with
expertise in ascertaining the cause of fires, particularly electrical fires.
Richardson does not dispute Markiewicz’ qualifications as an expert.
Page 2 of 14
On August 11, 2015, Markiewicz issued his Report. Defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of its Thirteenth Motion in Limine to
Exclude the Expert Testimony of Robert Markiewicz (d/e 134) (Richardson
Memorandum), Exhibit 1, Markiewicz Expert Report (Report). Markiewicz
relied on the determination of Westfield’s other expert, Dan Tankersley,
that the Fire originated in the northwest portion of the Building where the
Heaters were located. The northwest portion of the Building was called the
assembly area in the Building. Markiewicz stated in his report that the
assembly area contained a shrink wrap machine, workbench, parts boxes,
stacked cardboard boxes, three electrical panel boards, a transformer,
battery charger, a 220-volt extension cord (Extension Cord), and the two
Heaters. Markiewicz determined that at the time of the fire, the Extension
Cord was plugged into a 220-volt receptacle, but nothing was plugged into
the other end of the Extension Cord. At the time of Markiewicz’ inspection
of the Building, the circuit breaker for the Heaters was tripped, or in the
open position. See Report, at 2-3 of 5.
Markiewicz determined that the Heaters and the Extension Cord were
the only devices in the assembly area connected to electrical power at the
time of the Fire. Markiewicz took the Heaters and Extension Cord to his
laboratory for testing and examination. Markiewicz determined that the
Page 3 of 14
Extension Cord did not start the fire because the insulation on the
Extension Cord was damaged by the fire rather than by the Extension
Cord’s internal failure. Evidence of electrical arc damage occurred after the
Fire damaged the insulation and did not cause the Fire. Report, at 3 of 5.
Markiewicz examined and tested the components of the Heaters,
including the heating elements. Each Heater had three heating elements.
Markiewicz determined that one of the elements in one of the Heaters
failed because it had reached the end of its useful life. Two of the elements
tested had resistances of 46.9 and 45.7 ohms, respectively, which was
within normal ranges. The faulty element had a resistance of 92.6 ohms,
outside of normal ranges, indicating that the element failed. The element
showed damage caused by an electrical arc. The metal sheath
surrounding the faulty heating element had melted in spots. Markiewicz
opined that the element failed at the end of its useful life and caused a
short circuit. The short circuit caused a power surge, which caused sparks
and melted portions of the metal sheath surrounding the faulty heating
element. Markiewicz opined that some of the sparks and molten metal fell
on the cardboard boxes, causing them to ignite. Markiewicz opined that the
power surge also caused the circuit breaker to trip and shut off the flow of
Page 4 of 14
electricity to the Heaters. Markiewicz opined that the failure of this heating
element caused the fire. See Report, at 4-5 of 5.
Markiewicz also reviewed an installation instruction manual for the
Heaters originally dated 1999 with a September 2005 revision date (2005
Manual) provided to him. The 2005 Manual stated that:
All metal sheathed heating elements MUST be protected by
ground fault circuit interrupting breakers and/or fast acting fuses
(see below) sized as close as possible to the amps shown on
the data plate. Failure to comply could result in electrocution,
building fire or equipment damage.
Report, at 4 of 5 (emphasis in the original). Markiewicz determined that
neither ground fault circuit interrupting (GFCI) breakers nor fast acting
fuses were used in the installation of the Heaters in the Building.
Markiewicz determined that GFCI breakers could not have been used in
this installation due to the configuration of the wiring, but fast acting fuses
could have been used. See Report, at 8; Richardson Memorandum,
Exhibit 2, Markiewicz Deposition, at 109-14.
Markiewicz stated that he did not have data available for review to
determine if the use of fast acting fuses would have prevented the damage
to the heating element. Markiewicz stated, “Therefore, it was possible that
even had the subject heater been protected by fuses the subject heating
Page 5 of 14
element may still have failed in a similar fashion and resulted in this fire.”
Report, at 5 of 5.
Markiewicz set forth four conclusions in his Report:
•
The electrical arc damage on the extension cord was a result of
fire impinging on the cord, which allowed the conductors to
come into contact with each other and/or the metal workbench.
•
An electrical failure of the assembly area heater's heating
element 1 occurred and was the failure mode that resulted in
sparks dropping onto and igniting combustible materials below
the heater. This fire was the direct result of the electrical failure
of heating element 1 in the assembly area heater.
•
Richardson Electric did not electrically connect the assembly
area heater in accordance with the 2005 revised manufacturer's
instructions.
•
It was possible that had fuses been installed to protect the
assembly area heater, the electrical failure of the heating
element still may have occurred and resulted in this fire.
Markiewicz Report, at 5.
On August 31, 2006, Richardson’s attorneys took Markiewicz’
deposition. Markiewicz testified that fast acting fuses called for in the 2005
Manual were designed to cut off the flow of electricity more quickly than the
circuit breaker during a power surge. Markiewicz said that fast acting fuses
are designed to be installed in a disconnect box placed in the electrical line
between the electrical device, such as one of the Heaters, and the
electrical panel. In this case, three electrical lines carrying current ran from
Page 6 of 14
the panel to each Heater. Each line supplied one heating element. If fast
acting fuses were installed, each electrical line would run from the panel to
the disconnect box designed to hold the fuses, and then out from the
disconnect box to the Heater. Electrical current would run from the power
source through the fuses to the Heater. If a power surge happened, the
metal in the fast acting fuse would melt and create an opening in the
electrical circuit, which would shut off power to the faulty heating element.
Shutting off the power would limit the sparks and the melting of the metal
sheath. See Markiewicz Deposition, at 131-37.
Markiewicz testified that both the fast acting fuses and the circuit
breaker would cut off power in less than a second after the short circuit
started, but fast acting fuses were designed to cut power more quickly than
the circuit breaker in the panel. Markiewicz testified that no disconnect
boxes and no fast acting fuses were included in the installation of the
Heaters. See Markiewicz Deposition, at 116-17, 123-24.
Markiewicz also testified that the short circuit could have caused
sparks and melting of the metal sheath before a fast acting fuse could have
cut off the power. Markiewicz stated that a fast acting fuse was designed
to reduce the amount of damage by cutting off the power more quickly than
a circuit breaker in the panel. See Markiewicz Deposition, at 136-37.
Page 7 of 14
Markiewicz stated that earlier versions of the 2005 Manual were not
available. He stated in his report, “The installation instructions associated
with the 2004 manufacturing date should be reviewed, once provided, in
order to determine the manufacturer's guidance on proper electrical
connections that would have been included with the subject heater.”
Report, at 4 of 5. According to counsel for Westfield, a version of the
instruction manual with a revision date of 2002 was produced in discovery
(2002 Manual) after Markiewicz’ deposition occurred. The 2002 Manual
contains the same language quoted above that either ground fault circuit
interrupting breakers and/or fast acting fuses “MUST” be installed for each
metal sheath element. See Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company’s,
Response in Opposition to Defendant, Richardson Electric, Inc.,’s Motion in
Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony (d/e 135) (Response), at 5-6, and
Exhibit C, 2002 Manual.
ANALYSIS
Richardson moves in limine to exclude Markiewicz’ opinions at trial.
Richardson argues that his opinions fail to meet the standards for
admissibility for expert testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
opinion or otherwise if:
Page 8 of 14
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. This Court must perform a gate-keeping function to
determine that expert testimony is reliable and relevant under the principles
codified in Rule 702. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). In performing this function, the Court must
determine the reliability and the relevance of the evidence. Ammons v.
Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816 (7th Cir. 2004).
First, Markiewicz is qualified to render expert opinions on the issue of
the cause of the Fire. He has extensive training and experience in this
field. Richardson agrees that Markiewicz is qualified.
The Court must then determine whether the expert testimony is
reliable and relevant and whether his opinions will assist the trier of fact in
determining a fact in issue. See Ammons, 368 F.3d at 816. The Court must
evaluate the reliability of the expert’s methodology. Manpower Inc. v. Ins.
Co. of Penn., 732 F.3d 796, 806 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court, however, does
Page 9 of 14
not evaluate the quality of the underlying data or the quality of the expert’s
conclusions. “The soundness of the factual underpinnings of the expert’s
analysis and the correctness of the expert’s conclusions based on that
analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact, or, where
appropriate, on summary judgment.” Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d
713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court must also evaluate whether the expert’s
opinions are relevant and fit the issue to which the expert is testifying. See
Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 344 (7th Cir.
1995).
The Court finds that Markiewicz’ first two conclusions (1) that the
Extension Cord did not cause the Fire, and (2) that the faulty heating
element in one of the Heaters caused the fire, are both reliable and
relevant and will assist the trier of fact in determining a fact in issue. The
Report and Markiewicz’ deposition testimony shows that he used reliable
methods to reach his conclusion and his conclusions are relevant to the
facts at issue.
The Court further finds that Markiewicz’ third conclusion that the
Heaters were not installed in compliance with the 2005 Manual is reliable
and relevant and will assist the trier of fact in determining a fact in issue.
Plaintiff represents that the 2002 Manual contains the same instructions to
Page 10 of 14
include GFCI breakers and/or fast acting fuses in the installation of the
Heaters. Markiewicz’ conclusion that the Heaters were not installed in
compliance with this requirement, therefore, is relevant. Markiewicz
inspected the assembly area after the fire, and so, personally determined
that fast acting fuses were not included in the installation. He is qualified to
make that determination by a personal inspection under the facts of this
case. His opinion is helpful to the fact finder since a layperson may not be
familiar with fast acting fuses or their method of installation. The opinion is
also relevant because a failure to follow installation instructions is relevant
to Richardson’s duty to perform the installation in an appropriate manner
and whether it breached that duty.
The Court further finds that Markiewicz’ fourth conclusion that, “It was
possible that had fuses been installed to protect the assembly area heater,
the electrical failure of the heating element still may have occurred and
resulted in this fire,” is reliable and relevant and will assist the trier of fact in
determining a fact in issue. The 2005 Manual states that failure to install
GFCI breakers and/or fast acting fuses could result in a fire. The statement
in the 2005 Manual may provide evidence to support an inference that the
lack of fast acting fuses may have contributed to or caused the Fire.
Markiewicz, however, states in his final conclusion that the Fire might have
Page 11 of 14
happened anyway, even if the fuses were installed. Markiewicz explained
in his deposition how fast acting fuses work and how they were designed to
reduce the amount of sparks and molten metal sheathing around the
heating elements, but were not designed to prevent all sparks or melting of
sheathing in the event of a short circuit. The opinion is helpful to the jury to
understand that these fuses may not have provided complete protection
against catastrophic events like the Fire. The conclusion clearly states the
Fire might have happened even with the fuses.
Markiewicz relied on his experience and training to provide this
explanation of the design and function of fast acting fuses. Markiewicz has
the training and experience as an electrical engineer and expert in
electrical fires to know how fast acting fuses work and what they are
designed to do. His experience is a sufficient basis to give these opinions.
See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152-57 (1999)
(expert opinions may be based properly on expert’s experience and
training).
Richardson complains that Markiewicz fails to follow a reliable
methodology because he did not conduct testing to determine exactly how
fast acting fuses would have worked in this circumstance. Richardson
argues that without such testing, Markiewicz’ methodology is unreliable and
Page 12 of 14
his opinions are inadmissible. The Court disagrees. Markiewicz is only
opining on the use and function of fast acting fuses as applied to this
context. He is qualified to provide that explanation. His explanation would
be helpful to the jury to understand why the 2005 Manual required their
use, and to understand that the fuses may not have provided complete
protection against the Fire that occurred here.
Richardson argues that Markiewicz also opines that the use of fast
acting fuses would have prevented the Fire in this case. The Court has
carefully reviewed Markiewicz’ report and deposition and finds no instance
in which Markiewicz expressed such an opinion. Richardson argues that
the third and fourth conclusion in his Report, when read together,
effectively constitutes an opinion that fast acting fuses would have
prevented the fire. The Court disagrees. The two conclusions only indicate
that the Heaters were not properly installed because of the omission of fast
acting fuses, and it is possible that the Fire could have occurred even if fast
acting fuses were included in the installation. Those opinions, together, do
not state that fuses would have prevented the Fire. Markiewicz gives no
indication that he intends to opine that fuses would have prevented the
Fire, and so, no need exists to bar such testimony in limine.
Page 13 of 14
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Richardson Electric,
Inc.’s (Richardson) Thirteenth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert
Testimony of Robert Markiewicz under Daubert (d/e 133) is DENIED.
ENTER: August 2, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 14 of 14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?