Business interruption loss accountant
Expert class library · Insurance · Either side
Calculates lost business income and extra expense under a property policy, including the period of restoration and what the business would have earned, either for the insured in coverage litigation or as the forensic accountant the insurer hired to adjust the claim. Courts usually treat disputes over inputs and policy assumptions as matters for cross-examination, but keep an adjusting accountant who is also a fact witness to the opinions he formed on the claim.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What would the business have earned had the loss not occurred, and what historical records, budgets and trends support that projection?
- When does the period of restoration or extended period of indemnity begin and end under the policy, and how did the expert choose those dates?
- How did the expert separate losses caused by the covered event from losses caused by wider market conditions?
- Was the accountant involved in adjusting the claim, and if so, which opinions were formed during that work and which were formed for litigation?
- Does the calculation follow the policy's own loss measurement provisions?
Methods
- Projected versus actual income analysis
- Period of restoration analysis
- Extra expense and continuing expense review
- Seasonality and trend adjustment
- Market share and competitor comparison
How the testimony is attacked
- Wrong start dates and coverage assumptions. Insurers argue the expert used the wrong dates or assumed coverage that does not exist. In 11333 Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's the court declined to exclude the insured's economic loss expert on those grounds because his core analysis and methodology were undisputed, leaving the specific disputes for trial.
- Losses not caused by the covered event. Insurers argue the business lost income for reasons other than the insured peril, such as a regional downturn. In Citadel Broadcasting v. AXIS the court upheld a forensic accountant's hurricane claim that compared the stations' rising ratings before the storm with competitors that kept broadcasting and gained market share.
- Late or unpreserved challenge. Reliability objections raised only after the expert testifies may be lost. In Citadel the appellate court held the insurer waived its challenge by seeking no pretrial Daubert hearing and making no contemporaneous objection, and added that the testimony was in any event based on the policy language and the insured's books and records.
- Adjusting accountant with a stake in the outcome. When the insurer's claim accountant is also a key fact witness, the insured argues his expert opinions are neither objective nor reliable. In Phoenix Restoration Group v. Liberty Mutual the court limited such an accountant to the opinions that guided his work on the claim and barred freestanding expert testimony or rebuttal of the insured's forensic accountant.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "business interruption" AND (accountant OR loss OR expert) AND damages AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 10 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 3, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admitted | Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. AXIS U.S. Insurance Co.162 So. 3d 470 | La. Ct. App. 2015 | In a hurricane business interruption suit the court held the insurer had waived its challenge to the insured's forensic accounting expert by not seeking a pretrial Daubert hearing or objecting at trial, and found no abuse of discretion in any event because his loss calculation followed the policy language and the insured's records; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review. |
| Admitted | 11333 Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London261 F. Supp. 3d 1003 | D. Ariz. 2017 | In a dispute over hurricane losses and missing business interruption coverage the court denied the insurers' motion to exclude the insured's economic loss expert, holding that objections to his assumed loss and start dates did not touch his undisputed methodology, although it granted summary judgment to the defendants on other grounds. |
| Limited | Phoenix Restoration Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc.Civil Action No. 18-2121 | D.D.C. 2020 | In a fire loss suit that included unpaid business income, the court limited the insurer's forensic accountant, who had helped adjust the claim and was a central fact witness, to opinions that guided his claim work, citing Rule 702 reliability concerns about his stake in the outcome and Rule 403. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.