The Case
The Vice President of Claims for a large insurance company liked the technical work of an expert in accident reconstruction, but knew he performed poorly at depositions and at trial.
- During depositions, opposing counsel's kind demeanor and conversational tone fooled the expert into being too verbose.
- At trial the expert's testimony was often too technical and therefore inaccessible for jurors.
Trial Synergy's Contribution
At the request of the insurance company, Jeri reviewed the expert's past testimony and then spent time with him to understand his motivations and watch his demeanor when confronted.
- For past depositions, this expert had mostly been cautioned "what not to do." This negative training did not give him any useful guidance on how to answer questions, but instead left him in a quandary -- believing that if he stayed quiet it would leave the wrong impression about his knowledge and their side of the case.
- At trial, the expert was invested in making a good impression, and impressing jurors with his expertise. He tried to include too much in answer and then appeared arrogant when cross examined.
Jeri's work with this expert witness shifted his focus in deposition and at trial toward ways to "stay on track" when confronted with a variety of questioning styles. His new understanding increased his willingness to take the kinds of risks that made him a more powerful and astute deponent and witness.
Outcome
Jeri's work with the expert dramatically improved his effectiveness at deposition and during trials. After Jeri's work with the expert, the insurance company's exposure was substantially reduced in a number of cases.
The VP of Claims describes Trial Synergy's contribution.
Learn more about how companies mitigate risk through the use of trial consultants.
