Spotlight on damages – Experts shouldn’t assume causation

Description

Abstract: Many attorneys see causation as a legal issue that’s outside a financial expert’s body of knowledge and expect their financial expert to simply accept a plaintiff’s theory of causation. This article explains why this reasoning may be flawed and provides a real-life example of how failure to distinguish damages caused by the defendant from other types of business losses puts an expert’s testimony at risk for being excluded. American Aerial Services v. Terex USA, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00361-JDL, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Maine (April 29, 2015)