III. THE COURT MUST EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT THE INSURANCE POLICY ONLY PROVIDES ACTUAL CASH VALUE (ACV) COVERAGE

Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants will argue that the policy only provides only actual cash value (ACV) coverage. Defendants have responded to discovery, offered a repair estimate and will present expert witness testimony regarding replacement cost value (RCV), AMJ Affidavit Exs., 5, 6,7. To date Defendants has not disclosed any evidence or expert witnesses that will testify as to the fact that the policy only provides actual cash value coverage. If Defendants are permitted to present evidence that the policy is actual cash value coverage only, Plaintiffs will be unprepared to rebut this evidence. …show more content…
Minnesota courts have “never required experts to testify in terms of absolute or mathematical certainty.” Block v. Target Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). Instead, the Minnesota Supreme Court held, that “expert testimony must demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Testimony must show that it was more likely that [the injury] occurred from defendant's negligence than anything else.” Walton v. Jones, 286 N.W.2d 710 (Minn.1979); See, Block v. Target Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 705, 711 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990))” We hold that the trial court erred by requiring Keiser to express his opinion on causation to a mathematical or scientific degree of certainty […] Keiser testified that he could express this opinion ‘to a reasonable degree of architectural certainty.’”).
Neither Rodney Nohr nor Merlin Williams disclosures demonstrate that they have opined to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty. The anticipated testimony from Defendants experts do not meet the expert certainty test that is required by Minnesota law, for these reasons the Court must exclude any expert testimony from Paul Nohr and Merlin Williams.
V. THE COURT MUST EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, AND ARGUMENT THAT STEVE BORG CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DAMAGE AT THE …show more content…
Stat. § 604.01, there must be evidence tending to demonstrate the party’s fault. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 622 v. Keene Corp., 511 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Minn. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Jensen v. Walsh, 623 N.W.2d 247 (Minn. 2001). A defendant is not entitled to submit the issue of another party’s comparative fault to the jury when it presents no evidence establishing the other party’s fault. Id. Neither Williams nor Nohr’s speculation, without any evidentiary support whatsoever, meets the threshold to support the present question of Mr. Borg’s alleged comparative fault to the Jury under Minn. Stat. §