In Player v. Motiva Enters. LLC, 240 Fed. Appx. 513 (3d Cir. July 13, 2007), plaintiff property owners claimed that the defendant was responsible for the discharge of hazardous substances that contaminated the plaintiffs' drinking water. Id.
The trial court excluded the plaintiffs' primary proof of damages--testimony by the plaintiffs' damages expert (a licensed appraiser)--and granted summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of property damage. Id.
On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, concluding that the plaintiffs' alternative evidence, which included one property owner's testimony that a potential buyer reneged on his offer to buy her property when he learned about the contamination, "did not demonstrate that her home declined in value." Id.