For attorneys new to construction litigation, the expert witness phase of the case often produces surprises — both in terms of how expert opinions are developed and how they hold up under the scrutiny of deposition and trial. Understanding what to expect from competent construction expert testimony helps set realistic expectations and better prepares the attorney-expert team for the challenges ahead.
The Report as Advocacy Document
Expert reports in construction cases are persuasive documents as well as analytical ones. A technically sound report that is difficult to read, organized in a way that buries the key opinions, or that fails to communicate its conclusions compellingly is less useful than one that delivers the same analysis in a clear, accessible way.
Working with a Utah construction expert witness services team that understands both the technical and communication dimensions of expert reporting produces better outcomes than engaging an expert who is technically strong but can’t communicate effectively.
Deposition Preparation
The American Bar Association’s Construction Section resources include guidance on expert witness preparation that covers both the technical and procedural dimensions of deposition. Effective deposition preparation goes beyond reviewing the report — it includes anticipating the opposing expert’s criticism and preparing the expert to respond to the most likely attacks on their methodology and conclusions.
Cross-Examination Vulnerabilities
Every expert opinion has vulnerabilities. The question is whether those vulnerabilities are minor — small areas of uncertainty at the margins — or fundamental — challenges to the core methodology or factual basis of the opinion. Identifying vulnerabilities during preparation rather than discovering them during cross-examination allows the attorney and expert to address them proactively.
Rebuttal Opinions
When the opposing party’s expert opinion is served, the question is not simply whether you disagree with it — it’s whether the disagreement is significant enough to rebut and whether rebuttal testimony will help or hurt the overall case presentation. Sometimes the most effective response to a weak opposing opinion is to let the cross-examination handle it rather than multiplying the expert testimony.
