The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA) Expert Evidence Report®
A growing number of courts have addressed the applicability of methodologies that attempt to predict the impact of alleged contamination on property values through models that are not based on actual sales in the relevant market, attorney Kathy K. Condo and economist Louis L. Wilde say.
The authors discuss this trend, and examine in depth a July ruling by the Western District of Oklahoma that rejected an expert’s proposed meta-analysis—a process that ‘‘attempts systematically to integrate the results of various published and unpublished studies on a specific research topic.’’ That exclusion was correct, the authors say, because the rejected models didn’t fit the facts of the case and weren’t based on the relevant market.
Expert Opinion Based on Meta-Analysis Rejected as Basis For Determining Property Value Diminution Due to Alleged Contamination
In a recent case in federal court in Oklahoma, Alexander v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,1 Plaintiffs alleged that their properties were diminished in value due to present contamination or potential future contamination of groundwater beneath their properties by perchlorate. Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Dr. Kevin J. Boyle, an economist, opined about the resulting diminution of property values based on the use of a metaanalysis and the prices paid for various properties purchased by Halliburton.2 As discussed below, the specific meta-analysis relied upon by Dr. Boyle is one of four meta-analyses presented in an article published by Simons and Saginor.
After considering Dr. Boyle’s expert report and deposition testimony, the court excluded his opinions, stating:
Thus, it is clear that Dr. Boyle’s model does not give the value of the properties immediately after the injuries, as required by Oklahoma law. In fact, based upon his deposition testimony, Dr. Boyle’s model does not even give the value of the properties more than three years after the announcement of the potential contamination. Accordingly, the court finds that Dr. Boyle’s opinions are not relevant to the issues of damages in these cases and should be excluded.4