Barbara Ann Tudyman - Page 25

                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011