Guillory v. Domtar Industries Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1331 (5th Cir. 1996) (expert opinion testimony based on facts that are "indisputably wrong" excluded as unreliable and irrelevant). Under Daubert, a finding of reliability and validity do not require certainty, but must be demonstrated by evidence that the expert's opinion is more than speculation. U.S. v. John Stapp, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 819, 826 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590). Here, Dr. Plunkett provides no support for her conclusion that "the Bravelle that was administered to. . . Tsao was less potent than claimed."
The claimant must establish the amount of repair costs "with reasonable certainty that the damages claimed were actually or may be reasonably inferred to have been incurred as a result of the collision." Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. M/V Tako Invader, 37 F.3d 1138, 1140 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); see also United States v. John Stapp, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 819, 824-25 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (explaining that the party seeking repair costs must prove the reasonableness of the amount). As to loss of charter hire damages, the vessel owner must establish that the vessel was capable of being engaged in profitable commerce during the repair period.
Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. M/V Tako Invader, 37 F.3d 1138, 1140 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); see also United States v. John Stapp, Inc., 448 F.Supp.2d 819, 824-25 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (explaining that the party seeking repair costs must prove the reasonableness of the amount). As to loss of charter hire damages, the vessel owner must establish that the vessel was capable of being engaged in profitable commerce during the repair period.