Precision Trenchless, LLC v. Saertex Multicom LP
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 3:19-CV-0054 (JCH) |
| Parties | PRECISION TRENCHLESS, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SAERTEX MULTICOM LP, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING ON MOTIONS TO PRECLUDE (DOC. NOS. 233, 234, 237, 238, 239 240, & 243) AND MOTION TO SEAL (262)
This consolidated action arises out of property damage caused by the failure of a newly installed pipe liner that was supposed to rehabilitate and reinforce an existing sewer pipe in West Hartford, Connecticut. The parties to this action are: (1) the Metropolitan District Commission (“MDC”), the specially chartered Connecticut municipal corporation that commissioned the pipe-replacement project; (2) Ludlow Construction Company, Inc. (“Ludlow”), MDC's general contractor; (3) The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company (“Charter Oak”) and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“TPCCA”), Ludlow's insurers (collectively, “the Insurance Companies”); (4) Precision Trenchless, LLC (“Precision”), Ludlow's subcontractor; and (5) Saertex multiCom LP (“Saertex”) and Granite Inliner, LLP (“Granite”), the manufacturers of the failed liner. The parties have filed various multi-count Complaints and counterclaims against each other, as well as several Motions to preclude expert testimony.
Now before the court are: (1) Granite's Motion to Preclude Precision's Expert Mr. Kaleel Rahaim (Doc. No. 233); (2) Granite's Motion to Preclude Precision's Expert Dr. Mark Knight (Doc. No. 234); (3) Saertex's Motion to Preclude Precision's Experts Mr. Kaleel Rahaim and Dr. Mark Knight (Doc. No. 237); (4) Precision's Motion to Preclude Testimony of Saertex Expert Dr. Jorg Sebastian and Strike His Letter Report (Doc. No. 240); (5) Precision's Motion to Preclude Testimony of Granite Experts Dr. Jericho Moll and Dr. Antonios Vytiniotis (Doc. No. 243); (6) Precision's Motion to Preclude MDC's Damages Expert Mr. Vincent Vizzo (Doc. No. 239); and (7) MDC's Motion to Preclude Precision's Expert Mr. John J. Fleming (Doc. No. 238).[1]
The facts and most of the procedural background pertaining to this consolidated matter are laid out in the court's September 22, 2021 Ruling on the Insurance Companies' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision (Doc. No. 102), MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Ludlow (Doc. No. 122), and MDC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Precision (Doc. No. 129). See Sept. 22, 2021 Ruling at 2-10 (Doc. No. 310). The court will not repeat those facts in detail here, but assumes the parties' familiarity with them.
By way of brief background, this action concerns a pipe repair gone wrong in West Hartford, Connecticut. To rehabilitate a failing pipe, MDC contracted with Ludlow, which in turn retained Precision to carry out the repair work.
Precision completed the repair using UV Cured in Place Pipe (UV CIPP) technology. UV CIPP promises an efficient solution for damaged pipes; rather than digging to excavate an entire pipeline, a specially manufactured, flexible, resin-infused liner is inserted into the faulty pipe and pulled through until it covers the damaged portion of the pipe. The liner is then inflated so that it tightly lines the inside of the surrounding pipe. Finally, the liner is exposed to UV light, causing the resin to cure, hardening the liner, and effectively forming a new, intact pipe within the existing, damaged pipe.
The West Hartford pipe repair utilized this UV CIPP technology, using a Type-S Saertex UV-liner. See Sept. 22, 2021 Ruling at 2. Saertex and Granite manufactured the liner. The “dry” liner-i.e., the liner before being infused with resin-was manufactured by Saertex in its North Carolina factory. The dry liner was then shipped to Granite's facility in Indiana, where Granite “wet-out” the liner, infusing it with resin on May 28, 2018. The wet-out process was computer automated and involved several steps, including pulling the liner through a vacuum chamber, into a resin bath, and out through a set of “nip rollers” that removed excess resin. After wetting out, the liner was shipped to Precision in Connecticut, where Precision installed it on May 14, 2018. On October 3, 2018, the liner buckled and failed.
The expert testimony at issue in the first five Motions to Preclude concerns the manufacturing and installation processes for the UV CIPP liner used in the West Hartford pipe repair. Precision, Granite, and Saertex have produced expert witnesses, each of whom puts forth a different theory as to why the liner failed. While each expert's opinion is discussed in more detail below, in broad strokes, Precision's experts, Mr. Rahaim and Dr. Knight, opine that manufacturing error during the wet-out process at Granite's facility left the liner insufficiently saturated with resin, causing the liner's collapse. See pp. 9-38, infra. Granite and Saertex's experts, Drs. Moll, Vytiniotis, and Sebastian, opine that faulty installation by Precision is to blame, and that the liner failed because resin migrated within or out of the liner, or was washed out upon installation. See pp. 38-63, infra.
The final two Motions to Preclude seek to exclude the testimony of damages experts. MDC and Precision have both produced expert witnesses, Mr. Vizzo and Mr. Fleming, to address the issue of damages. When the liner failed, sewage seeped into nearby homes and yards, causing property damage. MDC issued payments to homeowners who claimed their property had been damaged or destroyed, and MDC seeks indemnification from Precision for these payments. See MDC Amended Compl. ¶¶ 1-26 & p. 6 (Doc. No. 92). MDC's damages expert, Mr. Vizzo, opines that MDC's methodology for repaying homeowners was reasonable, while Precision's expert, Mr. Fleming, contends that MDC used the wrong standard to calculate the homeowners' damages. See pp. 64-75, infra.
Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides in full:
Fed. Rules of Evid. 702. The district court acts as a gatekeeper, charged with the task of deciding whether the expert's testimony satisfies Rule 702's general requirements. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 (1993). This gatekeeping function “is tempered by the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the ‘presumption of admissibility.'” Bunt v. Altec Indus., Inc., 962 F.Supp. 313, 317 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Second Circuit has endorsed a “particularly broad standard for the admissibility of expert testimony”, Colon ex rel. Molina v. BIC USA, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 53, 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), wherein expert testimony should only be excluded if it is “speculative or conjectural”, if it is “based on assumptions that are ‘so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith,' or to be in essence an ‘apples to oranges comparison.'” Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Shatkin v. McDonnel Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 1984)).
In defining the gatekeeping role of the district court, the Second Circuit has distilled Rule 702's requirements into three broad criteria: (1) qualifications, (2) reliability, and (3) relevance and assistance to the trier of fact. See Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396-97 (2d Cir. 2005).
Whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial