|
|
|
THE USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS
Leslie McHugh, Esquire and Kevin Kelly, Esquire
(Continued from page 1)
In architectural malpractice, the Court of Appeals has held that plaintiff must present expert testimony in support of the allegations, except where the alleged malpractice is within the competence of laymen to evaluate. 530 East 80 Corp. v. Unger.
It is questionable whether expert testimony is required in cases based upon allegations of insurance agents' and brokers' negligence, because the courts have refused to acknowledge their area of expertise as comprising a "profession". They have described the relationship between customer and agent as "an ordinary commercial" relationship, and applied this conclusion to issues of the statutes of limitations and the nature of the scope of the duty of the insurance broker, but have not explicitly required plaintiffs to present expert testimony to make out a prima facie case. However, since the general rule stated above is to provide expert testimony when an area of knowledge is beyond the ken of the "ordinary juror", it seems of obvious strategic benefit to try to dismiss a plaintiff's case when the issue is somewhat complex and technical and no expert opinion is used in support of plaintiff's allegations.
|
|
