Manpower, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania

In action by plaintiff-insured seeking declaration that defendant’s insurance policy covered certain business interruption losses, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment after excluding plaintiff’s expert witness, who provided testimony with respect to plaintiff’s alleged damages arising out of collapse of building that prevented plaintiff from having access to its office space for more than one year. Record showed that expert used acceptable method to calculate said damages, which was set forth in policy, and Dist. Ct.’s determination that expert’s use of only five-month period of time to calculate estimated growth of plaintiff’s profits and to ultimately project plaintiff’s lost profits rendered expert’s analysis unreliable was essentially factual matter that should have been determined by trier of fact, as opposed to issue that could have been resolved in summary judgment proceeding.