- 25 -
Petitioner contends that we should not have allowed
respondent to designate those exhibits as Lewis’ expert report
because respondent failed to do so 30 days before the calendar
call. Petitioner also contends that we should strike Lewis’
testimony because respondent listed Lewis in the pretrial
memorandum as a fact witness, not as an expert. Petitioner
argues that she was prejudiced because Halpin did not fully
respond to Lewis’ report in his report and because petitioner’s
counsel could not adequately prepare for cross-examination of
Lewis.
We disagree. Petitioner was not prejudiced in any way by
the admission into evidence of Lewis’ expert report and expert
testimony. Halpin referred to and relied on Exhibit 12-L (Lewis’
report) in preparing his own expert report. Halpin had Exhibit
12-L and petitioner’s counsel had pages 26-27 of Exhibit T
several months before trial. Halpin became thoroughly familiar
with these items before he testified at trial. Our consideration
of the points made by Lewis in those exhibits was identical
whether or not we treated the exhibits as Lewis’ expert report.
Respondent listed Lewis as a fact witness for this trial session
and one the year before. His expert testimony directly related
to his factual knowledge gained from his investigation of
petitioner’s residence after the earthquake. Petitioner had
every opportunity at trial to have Halpin respond to Lewis’
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011