Tech Landing, LLC v. JLH Ventures, LLC.

168 Idaho 482

483 P.3d 1025

TECH LANDING, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.JLH VENTURES, LLC. an Idaho limited liability company, dba True Paintball, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.

Docket No. 46949

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, August 2020 Term.

Opinion Filed: March 23, 2021

Sasser & Jacobson, PLLC, Boise, for appellant. James Jacobson argued.

Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP, Boise, for respondents. Phillip Collaer argued.

BRODY, Justice.

This appeal involves the grant of summary judgment on a negligence claim stemming from a fire loss. In 2013, Tech Landing, LLC ("Tech Landing") leased a building to JLH Ventures, LLC ("JLH") to operate a paintball business. After the building burned down in 2017, Tech Landing sued JLH, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims involved payment of rent after the building was destroyed and the failure to insure the building against fire loss. Those claims have been dismissed by stipulation of the parties and are not at issue here. With respect to its negligence claim, Tech Landing alleges that the fire was caused by the negligence of JLH. After ruling certain opinions of Tech Landing's expert witnesses were inadmissible, the district court granted summary judgment to JLH. We affirm the district court's ruling on the admissibility of the expert opinions, but reverse its grant of summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact that must be decided by a jury.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In its complaint, Tech Landing alleged three different theories as to how JLH's negligence caused the fire that destroyed its building: (1) "connecting too many pieces of equipment into power strips," (2) "failure to clean and maintain the laundry room including the washer and dryer units," and (3) "negligently leaving a base board heater running after hours." Tech Landing appears to have abandoned the first and third theories at some point in the litigation and instead refined its second theory. Though not stated with precision in Tech Landing's arguments below, the district court understood Tech Landing to assert the allegedly negligent actions that caused the fire were: (1) JLH's failure to clean lint from the back of the dryer left running after hours on the night of the fire, or (2) JLH's use of a piece of PVC pipe for a portion of the dryer's exhaust ducting.

JLH moved for summary judgment in November 2018, arguing that no evidence showed the fire was caused by its negligence. In support of the motion, JLH included a report from Dennis Zigrang, a fire investigator, concluding that neither a specific ignition source nor the exact origin of the fire could be identified, but that the fire could not have originated in the laundry room. JLH also included a report from Captain Boehm of the Boise Fire Department, concluding that the cause of the fire was undetermined and that it was possible, but unlikely, that the fire was caused by the clothes dryer.

Tech Landing opposed the summary judgment motion and submitted its own expert reports and declarations. The report of Dean Hunt, a fire investigator, contradicted Zigrang's report by concluding that the fire did originate in the laundry room. Further, Hunt concluded that while the specific ignition sequence was not identified, the probable cause of the fire was the dryer left running on the night of the fire. However, Hunt noted that review by an electrical engineer was necessary to conclusively determine the fire's cause. The report of David Cutbirth, an electrical engineer, concluded that the fire was not caused by an electrical fault in the dryer, but rather by combustion within the dryer exhaust duct, at or near a piece of PVC pipe used for part of the ducting. Tech Landing did not file a subsequent report from Hunt incorporating the findings of Cutbirth.

At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, JLH objected to the admissibility of both Hunt's and Cutbirth's reports, arguing that neither witness was qualified to offer expert testimony and that both reports lacked sufficient factual foundation for their conclusions. The district court took both the summary judgment and admissibility matters under advisement. In February 2019, the district court entered an order on JLH's evidentiary objections and motion for summary judgment. On the evidentiary matters, the district court ruled that the opinions of Hunt and Cutbirth on the cause of the fire were inadmissible. Specifically, the court found that Hunt's opinion that the dryer was the probable cause of fire was not based on his expertise, but "a logical deduction any person [could] choose to draw or not draw on his or her own." Therefore, it was inadmissible as an expert opinion. Similarly, the district court found Cutbirth's opinion that the fire began in the exhaust duct was not based on any expertise, but merely "an inference [Tech Landing] would like the jury to draw from various facts."

In its summary judgment ruling, the district court found there was a genuine dispute whether the fire began in the laundry room. However, without admissible expert opinion to establish the dryer was the cause of the fire, the court ruled this dispute was not material. Therefore, it granted summary judgment in favor of JLH on the negligence claim. Tech Landing timely appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews summary judgment rulings using the same standard that the district court used. Eldridge v. West , 166 Idaho 303, 308, 458 P.3d 172, 177 (2020). The movant has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Eagle Springs Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Rodina , 165 Idaho 862, 867, 454 P.3d 504, 509 (2019). If the movant makes that showing, the district court must grant summary judgment. Eldridge , 166 Idaho at 308, 458 P.3d at 177. When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the district court must liberally construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Eagle Springs , 165 Idaho at 867–68, 454 P.3d at 509–10. Summary judgment should not be granted if reasonable people could reach different conclusions or inferences from the evidence. Gomez v. Crookham Co. , 166 Idaho 249, 253, 457 P.3d 901, 905 (2020).

A district court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Green v. Green , 161 Idaho 675, 679, 389 P.3d 961, 965 (2017). When reviewing a lower court's decision for an abuse of discretion, this Court considers whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). The admissibility of expert testimony is a threshold matter that is distinct from whether the testimony raises genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc ., 157 Idaho 468, 473, 337 P.3d 627, 632 (2014).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that portions of Tech Landing's experts' testimony were inadmissible.

Idaho Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. A trial court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of expert testimony under the rule. Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs ., 143 Idaho 834, 837, 153 P.3d 1180, 1183 (2007). Generally, expert testimony is admissible "if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." I.R.E. 702. A corollary of this rule is that expert opinion is inadmissible if it "concerns conclusions or opinions that the average juror would be qualified to draw from the facts utilizing the juror's common sense and normal experience." Athay v. Stacey , 142 Idaho 360, 367, 128 P.3d 897, 904 (2005). While a court may not exclude testimony simply because it disagrees with an expert's conclusions, it must distinguish between "the self-validating expert, who uses scientific terminology to present unsubstantiated personal beliefs," and genuine experts employing methodologies recognized as valid within their respective fields. Coombs v. Curnow , 148 Idaho 129, 140–41, 219 P.3d 453, 464–65 (2009).

1. Admissibility of Hunt's opinions

Tech Landing's expert, Dean Hunt, a fire investigator, examined the scene of the fire in October 2017. Based on his observations, Hunt eliminated several areas of the building as possible origins of the fire before focusing on the laundry room. In the laundry room, Hunt noted there were burned remnants of fabric in one of two clothes dryers, and that the pattern of fire damage on the dryer began at the rear bottom and moved toward the front. Hunt also interviewed Jeremy Haile, one of the owners of JLH. Relevant here, Haile told Hunt that a dryer had been left running when the last employee left the building on the night of the fire; that the dryers had been purchased twelve years earlier; and, that the backs of the dryers had never been removed to clean out lint. Hunt's report closed with the following analysis:

This fire originated in the laundry room located in the northeast corner of the structure. This determination was based on the observed patterns of fire damage, witness statements, and a systematic evaluation of the remaining physical evidence and within a reasonable degree of fire science certainty. The probable cause of this fire is the dryer in the laundry room that had been left running prior to the fire. The cause of this fire is undetermined pending an

...