This action concerns insurance claims arising from water inundation events at the McCook Reservoir Tunnel Project in Hodgkins, Illinois.

Walsh filed a motion to exclude the declaration and expert reports of Lexington’s expert, Rachel Domingo.

Construction Management Expert Witness

Rachel Domingo has more than 10 years of experience specializing in project controls, project scheduling, delay damages, productivity and performance damages, change order negotiations, litigation support, and the development or defense of construction claims.

Domingo earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Construction Management from Polytechnic Institute of New York University.

Get the full story on challenges to Rachel Domingo’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

Walsh argued that Domingo’s declaration and reports should be excluded because: (1) her testimony is irrelevant and her opinions are not tied to the Policy’s language nor the facts of the case; and (2) they are inadmissible.

A. Expert Testimony

On August 10, 2022, Domingo issued a report which concluded that delays in the project were driven by delays in the fabrication of the gate system rather than the Floods. Because Domingo’s opinion directly informs why Lexington denied the claims, it is undoubtedly relevant to the issues in this case.

Walsh further contended that Domingo’s declaration and report should be excluded because her opinions are not tied to the terms of the Policy. Specifically, Walsh argued that Domingo’s analysis is tied to the project’s completion date instead of the construction schedule in place at the time of the alleged loss, as required by the Policy. However, Domingo is opining on whether Walsh actually incurred the costs claimed and whether either Flood actually caused the alleged Expediting Expenses and Extra Expenses. The Court found that Domingo’s failure to ground her opinions in the Policy language did not mean her testimony is irrelevant or unhelpful to the factfinder; indeed, it is relevant to causation.

Walsh also disagreed with Domingo’s determination that in the absence of either Flood, Walsh would have had months of downtime due to delays unrelated to the Floods, such that Walsh did not incur Expediting Expenses or Extra Expenses. But Walsh’s disagreement with Domingo’s conclusion is not a basis for exclusion, it is a basis for cross-examination.

B. Admissibility

Next, Walsh argued that the Court should not consider Domingo’s declaration or expert reports because they are inadmissible hearsay. Expert reports and declarations, themselves, are generally not admissible at trial.

However, Domingo’s declaration summarizes her reports, her reports are sworn to in her declaration, and the reports reflect what she would testify to at trial.

Moreover, Domingo stated that she “reviewed documents provided by Walsh during the claim adjustment and additional documents produced in this litigation,” and that the documents she considered are identified in the footnotes of her Rule 26 expert report.

Held

The Court denied Walsh’s motion to exclude the declaration and reports of Rachel Domingo.

Key Takeaway

The Court’s primary concern is “the validity of the methodology employed by an expert, not the quality of the data used in applying the methodology or the conclusions produced.”

Additionally, expert testimony must be tied to the case’s facts and issues. A Court should not exclude expert testimony that speaks on a relevant issue that the factfinder must decide.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Walsh Construction Company II, LLC V. Lexington Insurance Company
Docket Number:	1:22cv6842
Court Name:	United States District Court, Illinois Northern
Order Date:	April 28, 2026

Category: Construction Management Expert Witness

Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays

Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays