MICHAEL DAVIDSON v. LAKE MARINA TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (2026)

Relator, Michael Davidson, seeks expedited review of the trial court's April 7, 2026 judgment denying his motion to exclude expert reports. After consideration of the writ application, we grant the writ, vacate the trial court's April 7, 2026 judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

Relator filed a petition for damages against his condominium association, Respondent, Lake Marina Condominium Association, regarding damage to his condominium unit as a result of Hurricane Ida. He asserted that condensation caused damage to the exterior windows; the sliding glass balcony door; and the interior walls and floor of the unit. Relator retained an expert who opined that the damage was a result of condensation due to a broken thermal barrier in the windows and doors caused by the strong wind forces of the hurricane. Respondent retained as an expert, Larry M. Oliver Enterprises, Inc., who concluded that the condensation was the result of an unvented clothes dryer installed in Relator's unit. Relator's property insurer, AIG Claims, Inc., also retained an expert, Timothy Hassenboehler, P.E., on behalf of EFI Global, who concurred with Respondent's expert and determined that the condensation was due to the improperly vented clothes dryer.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and in opposition to Relator's motion for summary judgment, Respondent offered the expert reports of Larry M. Oliver Enterprises, Inc. and Timothy Hassenboehler, P.E. to demonstrate that the damage to Relator's unit was not caused by Hurricane Ida. Relator subsequently filed a “Motion to Continue Hearing on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and to Schedule Hearing Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1425(F).” In pertinent part, Relator's motion sought to exclude the expert reports of Larry M. Oliver Enterprises, Inc. and Timothy Hassenboehler, P.E. Relator argued that the reports were not based on sufficient facts and data. Specifically, Relator maintained that the reports are not reliable, and do not comply with La. C.E. art. 702(A)(2), because the inspection of the unit occurred in weather where the ambient exterior temperature was approximately 79°F. Since Relator testified in his deposition that the condensation issues only occur when the ambient temperature is below approximately 44°F or 45°F, he argued that both reports offered by Respondent are unreliable. Respondent opposed the motion, contending that the expert reports are sufficient and comply with La. C.E. art. 702(A)(2). At the hearing on Relator's motion, the trial court stated that “the evidence that is objected to is going after the character of the evidence, which should be attacked by cross-examination through trial and not through a Daubert hearing.” By judgment dated April 7, 2026, the trial court denied Relator's motion and ordered that both expert reports would “remain in the record.” This application for expedited supervisory review followed. This Court request an opposition from Respondent, which was filed on April 30, 2026.

Discussion

Relator presents one assignment of error, contending the trial court erred in failing to exclude both expert reports because both inspections of the unit were conducted under different weather conditions than those asserted by Relator. In opposition, Respondent argues that both expert reports were based on sufficient facts and data and therefore, satisfy the requirements of La. C.E. art. 702. We disagree. Rather, our review of this case suggests that the dispositive issue is procedural in nature. Specifically, whether the trial court correctly followed the mandates of La. C.C.P. art. 1425(F), which provides, in pertinent part,

(1) A party seeking to challenge whether a witness qualifies as an expert or whether the methodologies employed by the witness are reliable under Code of Evidence Articles 702 through 705 shall file a motion for a pretrial hearing. The motion shall be filed not later than sixty days prior to trial and shall set forth sufficient allegations showing the necessity for these determinations by the court.

(2) The court shall hold a contradictory hearing and shall rule on the motion not later than thirty days prior to the trial. At the hearing, the court shall consider the qualifications and methodologies of the proposed witness based upon the provisions of Code of Evidence Articles 104(A) and 702 through 705. For good cause shown, the court may allow live testimony at the contradictory hearing.

(3) If the ruling of the court is made at the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall recite orally its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment. If the matter is taken under advisement, the court shall render its ruling and provide written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment not later than five days after the hearing.

(4) The findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment shall be made part of the record of the proceedings. The findings of facts, conclusions of law, and reasons for judgment shall specifically include and address:

(a) The elements required to be satisfied for a person to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.

(b)The evidence presented at the hearing to satisfy the requirements of Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence at trial.

(c) A decision by the judge as to whether or not a person shall be allowed to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence at trial.

(d)The reasons of the judge detailing in law and fact why a person shall be allowed or disallowed to testify under Articles 702 through 705 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.

In the case sub judice, the April 7, 2026 judgment fails to articulate the necessary requirements regarding La. C.E. arts. 702-705. Specifically, the judgment does not identify the required elements; the evidence presented to satisfy the required elements; a decision as to whether or not a person would be allowed to testify under La. C.E. arts. 702-705; nor, the trial court's reasoning. At the March 26, 2026 hearing, in providing its reasons, the trial court summarized the disputed issue and cited case law. However, the trial court did not state specific findings of fact, conclusions of law or reasons for judgment that in any way addressed La. C.E. arts. 702-705. This Court, therefore, must render a decision based on a procedural issue and cannot consider the merits of Relator's writ application.

Accordingly, we find the trial court's April 7, 2026 judgment denying Relator's motion to exclude the expert reports of Larry M. Oliver Enterprises, Inc. and Timothy Hassenboehler, P.E. is vacated and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a new hearing to consider Relator's motion to exclude the expert reports and ensure compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 1425(F).

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase