Financial Damage Expert Opinions:
What's The Difference?
When presented with the same set of facts in a contested matter, financial damages experts often arrive at quantification-of-damages opinions with wide disparities. One of the first steps in addressing these differences is to identify where the expert opinions agree or diverge.
Most expert opinions are strongly based on “mathematical” facts – discrepancies in the underlying data, use of different sources or approaches, or errors in formulas – but it is just as important to consider the conceptual differences when quantifying damages.
One way to calculate the monetary award that would make the injured party whole again is by using the but-for approach. However, differences in the way experts measure and define the but-for scenario often accounts for the large degree of variance between financial experts’ opinions. Such differences are often found in the expert’s application of the following concepts:
- Legal damage remedies
- Causation of damages
- Standard of reasonable certainty
It is critical that the financial expert pay careful attention to the conceptual legal standards to provide a credible and reliable expert report and opinion.
For detailed information on using the but-for approach and an in-depth look at its accompanying application concepts, download KSM’s whitepaper, Financial Damage Expert Opinions: What’s the Difference?
About the Author
Jay Cunningham, CPA/CFF, CVA
About Katz, Sapper & Miller
KSM’s Litigation Services Group helps clients simplify the complexities of commercial litigation and work through intricate financial issues. Our comprehensive financial and business knowledge, as well as investigative research and analytical skills, ensures that the correct information is gathered and reviewed to help clients prepare and interpret our findings.