28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 548b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2806GLAS
Insurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Evidence — Expert testimony — Proffered expert witness satisfies Daubert standard — Motion to preclude expert witness is denied
GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. J. Bazan, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. I. Lamboy, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. R. Camagho, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. B. Barnett, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. S. Adkins, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. C. Beauford, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. D. Tanoo, et al., GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. D. Matz, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. J. Kevins, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. N. Joseph, GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. A. Maldonado, and GLASSCO, INC., a.a.o. C. Marks, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case Nos. 16-CC-026608, 16-CC-031286, 16-CC-029315, 16-CC-029301, 16-CC-034403, 16-CC-034756, 16-CC-036273, 16-CC-037057, 16-CC-037082, 16-CC-037125, 16-CC-039072, 17-CC-000870, Division M. July 27, 2020. Miriam Valkenburg, Judge. Counsel: Anthony T. Prieto, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Tampa; Christopher P. Calkin and Mike N. Koulianos, Law Offices of Christopher P. Calkin, P.A., Tampa; and David M. Caldevilla, de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. Melissa M. Buza, Philistine Hamdan, and Nicholas R. Cavallaro, Law Office of David S. Dougherty, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING “DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTWITNESS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW”
THIS CAUSE came before this Court on June 17, 2020 by “Zoom” video conference concerning the “Defendant’s Amended Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witness and Memorandum of Law” filed on May 1, 2020 by the Defendant, Geico General Insurance Company. The Court, having considered by motion, the response in opposition filed on June 8, 2020 by the Plaintiff, Glassco, Inc., a.a.o., J. Bazan, et al., the Defendant’s supplemental memorandum filed on June 11, 2020, the arguments of counsel, and the evidence presented by the parties, and being otherwise advised in the premises,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s expert witness, Barrett Smith, is qualified to provide expert opinion testimony at trial in these cases pursuant to Section 90.702, Florida Statutes. Mr. Smith has an overabundance of knowledge and experience in the fields of pricing and valuation of automobile repairs, including windshield glass replacement and installation, which will assist the trier-of-fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. Among other things, Mr. Smith has 40 years of experience in the automotive repair field; he worked for Progressive Insurance Company for five years where he determined the value of claims; he managed and/or owned multiple automotive repair automotive facilities; he has an AA degree; he has knowledge of various estimating systems; and he has previously been accepted by the courts as an expert witness.
2. The Court finds that Mr. Smith’s expected expert testimony satisfies the Daubert1 standards codified in Section 90.702, Florida Statutes. Mr. Smith’s expected expert testimony, which relies on published suggested retail pricing data and the results of surveys of various similarly situated windshield shops, is the product of reliable principles, and he applied those principles in a reliable manner to the facts.
3. Notably, each of these cases are small claims matters and will be decided by non-jury trial, where this Court will be the trier-of-fact. As the trier-of-fact, this Court will determine the credibility and persuasiveness of the experts testimony based on direct examination, cross-examination, and any competing evidence presented at trial.
4. Accordingly, the “Defendant’s Amended Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witness and Memorandum of Law” is hereby DENIED.
5. The Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Order in each of the above-styled cases.
__________________
1See, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
