CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD LONDON JHB CJP 1903 B0509M0334412 BO180E122624 v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION (2020)

Writ granted. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants manufactured defective metal casing pipe, which resulted in a June 2013 oil well blowout in Lafourche Parish. Before the well was plugged, a caliper tool was run on the well borehole in order to generate caliber log data, which provides a measurement of the size and shape of the interior of the borehole along its depth. In support of their claim, the plaintiffs offered the opinions of two metallurgists, Simon Bellemare and Thomas Eager (“the experts”), to prove that the caliber log data showed defects in the Electric Resistance Welded pipe manufactured by the defendants, which resulted in preferential wear and led to the blowout.

A district court is afforded broad discretion in its consideration of evidentiary matters, including motions in limine. Heller v. Nobel Insurance Group, 00-0261 (La. 2/2/00), 753 So.2d 841. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendants' motion in limine excluding the experts' opinions and, accordingly, also erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' product liability claim.

Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 702(A), which provides the standard for admissibility of expert testimony, states:

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:

(1) 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;

(2) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

In this case, we find that the experts' opinions clearly meet these criteria. As noted by Judge Welch in his dissenting opinion below, the experts in this case used a well-established, peer-reviewed, standard practice methodology—namely, the application of a peer-reviewed adhesive wear equation to the available caliper log data—to show that a step in the size range between the casing at issue could have caused preferential wear and resulting failure. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. United States Steel Corp., 18-0592, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/27/19), 2019 WL 4727582(unpublished). Thus, their expert opinions were reliable under La. C.E. art. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). We agree with Judge Welch that the majority below and the trial court erred in considering factors which may affect the credibility of the experts' opinions or the weight the jury affords their conclusions, but do not undermine the soundness of the methodology employed by the experts.

Additionally, we note that although these eminently qualified metallurgists lacked extensive knowledge of petroleum engineering, this does not undermine their ability to give their opinions regarding the circumstances of potential metal failure in this case. Rather, we agree with Judge Welch that their reliance on the expertise of plaintiffs' drilling expert, Gregory Sones, was appropriate. “An expert may provide testimony based on information obtained from others, and the character of the evidence upon which the expert bases an opinion affects only the weight to be afforded the expert's conclusion.” Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't v. Person, 12-0307, p. 8 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d 293, 298 (citations omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's grant of the defendants' motion in limine excluding the testimony of these experts. Because the trial court's grant of the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this case was predicated upon the erroneous exclusion of the experts' testimony, we also reverse the grant of the motion for summary judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this per curiam.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED; REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, J., recused.