Green v. State Farm Fire and Casualty

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 12 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CORNELIUS GREEN,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 10-12287
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT
THE TESTIMONY OF DANIEL CHURCHWARD
Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (“State
Farm”) Motion in Limine to Limit the Testimony of Daniel Churchward. (Doc. # 12).
Plaintiff retained Churchward, a certified fire investigator, to conduct an “origin and
cause” investigation. Plaintiff seeks to offer Churchward as an expert witness, under
Fed. R. Evid. 702, to testify that the fire on Plaintiff’s recliner was not intentionally set,
as Defendant suggests, but was caused by the drop-down of burning paint from the
living room ceiling.
The Court reviewed the parties’ briefings and the case, including Daubert v.
Merrell Do Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); it lays out a framework for evaluating the
admissibility of expert opinions. The Court finds that Plaintiff met his burden to show
that Churchward’s testimony is admissible.
In fire investigation cases, an expert may rely on his observations of the physical
evidence to deduce the likely cause of the fire. See, e.g., Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
1

391 F.3d 1114, 1125 (11th Cir, 2004) (“Employing his experience and knowledge as a
fire investigator, Boh observed the physical evidence at the scene of the accident and
deduced the likely cause of the explosion. Although such a method is not susceptible to
testing or peer review, it does constitute generally acceptable practice as a method for
fire investigators to analyze the cause of fire accidents....Nothing in Rule 702 or Daubert
requires more.”). During deposition, Churchward testified that he relied on an
unsophisticated paint burning experiment, where he placed a paint chip from Plaintiff’s
dining room ceiling directly into a Bunsen burner flame, to inform his opinion of how
Plaintiff’s recliner caught fire; however, he also relied on burn patterns, flame vectors,
the appearance of detached paint hanging from Plaintiff’s ceiling and laying on his
furniture, the amount of damage caused by the fire, and his knowledge of fire dynamics.
Moreover, Churchward conducted the scene investigation in accordance with
NFPA guidelines. Courts have uniformly found that NFPA 921, promulgated by the
National Fire Protection Association, provides a reliable method for investigating fires.
See, e.g., Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Nat’l RV Holdings, Inc., No. 05-2509, 2007 WL
954258, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2007); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.,
394 F.3d 1054, 1057-58 (8th Cir. 2005); McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F.R.D. 646, 653
(D. Kan. 2003).
Defendant’s critiques of Churchward’s shortcomings “target the weight of the
evidence and are proper subjects for cross-examination and closing argument.” Tolstih
v. Elecs., U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-582, 2009 WL 3241665, at * 6 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2,
2009); see also United States v. Metzger, 778 F.2d 1195, 1204 (6th Cir. 1985) (“[M]ost
dissimilarities between experimental and actual conditions affect the weight of the
2

evidence, not its admissibility.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 477
U.S. 906 (1986). As the district court in Tolstih found, “[t]he fact that physical testing...is
not impossible does not preclude [Churchward’s] theory as Defendants posit; rather this
fact simply provides a basis on which to attack his opinion.” 2009 WL 3241665, at *6.
“The foundation for some of [Churchward’s] conclusions therefore may [ ] be shaky, but
the methodology he [ ] employed is not so unreliable as to render his testimony
inadmissible. Although it appears he [could have done more] testing, this again is a
weight issue for the trier of fact to resolve.” Id.; see also Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Gwinner Oil, Inc., 125 F.3d 1176, 1183 (8th Cir. 1997).
Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 14, 2011
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
June 14, 2011.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3