- 25 -
evidence in the record, and we may accept or reject the expert
testimony, in whole or in part, according to our independent
evaluation of the evidence in the record. See Helvering v. Natl.
Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 295 (1938); Malachinski v.
Commissioner, 268 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2001); Estate of Davis v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 530, 538 (1998).
Petitioner offered expert testimony of Owen Gleeson
(Gleeson), Robert Sanders (Sanders), and James Hurley (Hurley).
Petitioner called Hurley to rebut certain conclusions of
respondent’s experts. Respondent offered expert testimony of
Frederick Kilbourne (Kilbourne) and David Otto (Otto), each
affiliated with the Kilbourne Co., who jointly submitted the
expert report of the Kilbourne Co. on behalf of respondent.
Owen Gleeson
Gleeson analyzed the reports that Tillinghast prepared for
petitioner for 1993 and 1994. He concluded that Tillinghast’s
reserve analyses were performed in a reasonable manner, employing
methodologies that were “appropriate to the lines of business
being analyzed.” In particular, he opined that in estimating
unpaid losses for each of the years 1993 and 1994, Tillinghast
appropriately gave weight to the prior year’s selected ultimate
losses. Gleeson opined that it was reasonable for petitioner to
rely upon the Tillinghast reports. He did not specifically
address the appropriateness of petitioner’s almost 10-percent
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