Commercial HVAC and refrigeration investigations and expert testimony in federal and state courts across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The evidence standard, repose clock, and expert-discovery rules change at every border — each jurisdiction below has its own page.
Tile positions are approximate. Bottom row: Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa (left); Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands (right). All federal courts apply Rule 702 and Daubert regardless of state standard.
| Jurisdiction | Standard | Controlling authority | Circuit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Hybrid / modified | Ala. R. Evid. 702(b) | 11th Cir. |
| Alaska | Daubert-type | State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) | 9th Cir. |
| Arizona | Daubert-type | Ariz. R. Evid. 702 (amended 2012) | 9th Cir. |
| Arkansas | Daubert-type | Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2000) | 8th Cir. |
| California | Frye | People v. Kelly, 549 P.2d 1240 (Cal. 1976) | 9th Cir. |
| Colorado | Daubert-type | People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) | 10th Cir. |
| Connecticut | Daubert-type | State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997) | 2nd Cir. |
| Delaware | Daubert-type | M.G. Bancorporation v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) | 3rd Cir. |
| District of Columbia | Daubert-type | Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) | D.C. Cir. |
| Florida | Daubert-type | Fla. Stat. §90.702 | 11th Cir. |
| Georgia | Daubert-type | O.C.G.A. §24-7-702 (civil since 2005 | 11th Cir. |
| Hawaii | Hybrid / modified | State v. Montalbo, 828 P.2d 1274 (Haw. 1992) | 9th Cir. |
| Idaho | Hybrid / modified | Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 153 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2007) | 9th Cir. |
| Illinois | Frye | Ill. R. Evid. 702 | 7th Cir. |
| Indiana | Hybrid / modified | Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) | 7th Cir. |
| Iowa | Hybrid / modified | Ranes v. Adams Labs., 778 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2010) | 8th Cir. |
| Kansas | Daubert-type | K.S.A. 60-456(b) (amended 2014) | 10th Cir. |
| Kentucky | Daubert-type | Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 908 S.W.2d 100 (Ky. 1995) | 6th Cir. |
| Louisiana | Daubert-type | State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) | 5th Cir. |
| Maine | State-specific test | State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978) | 1st Cir. |
| Maryland | Daubert-type | Rochkind v. Stevenson, 236 A.3d 630 (Md. 2020) | 4th Cir. |
| Massachusetts | Daubert-type | Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994) | 1st Cir. |
| Michigan | Daubert-type | MRE 702 | 6th Cir. |
| Minnesota | Frye | State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980) | 8th Cir. |
| Mississippi | Daubert-type | Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) | 5th Cir. |
| Missouri | Daubert-type | Mo. Rev. Stat. §490.065 (2017) | 8th Cir. |
| Montana | Hybrid / modified | M.R.E. 702 | 9th Cir. |
| Nebraska | Daubert-type | Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001) | 8th Cir. |
| Nevada | State-specific test | NRS 50.275 | 9th Cir. |
| New Hampshire | Daubert-type | RSA 516:29-a | 1st Cir. |
| New Jersey | Daubert-type | In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340 (2018) | 3rd Cir. |
| New Mexico | Daubert-type | State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993) | 10th Cir. |
| New York | Frye | People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417 (1994) | 2nd Cir. |
| North Carolina | Daubert-type | N.C. R. Evid. 702 (amended 2011) | 4th Cir. |
| North Dakota | State-specific test | N.D. R. Evid. 702 | 8th Cir. |
| Ohio | Daubert-type | Evid. R. 702 | 6th Cir. |
| Oklahoma | Daubert-type | Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) | 10th Cir. |
| Oregon | Daubert-type | State v. Brown, 687 P.2d 751 (Or. 1984) | 9th Cir. |
| Pennsylvania | Frye | Pa.R.E. 702(c) | 3rd Cir. |
| Rhode Island | Daubert-type | DiPetrillo v. Dow Chem. Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) | 1st Cir. |
| South Carolina | State-specific test | State v. Council, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C. 1999) | 4th Cir. |
| South Dakota | Daubert-type | State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1994) | 8th Cir. |
| Tennessee | Hybrid / modified | McDaniel v. CSX Transp., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) | 6th Cir. |
| Texas | Daubert-type | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) | 5th Cir. |
| Utah | State-specific test | Utah R. Evid. 702 (amended 2007) | 10th Cir. |
| Vermont | Daubert-type | State v. Brooks, 643 A.2d 226 (Vt. 1993) | 2nd Cir. |
| Virginia | State-specific test | Va. Code §8.01-401.3 | 4th Cir. |
| Washington | Frye | State v. Copeland, 922 P.2d 1304 (Wash. 1996) | 9th Cir. |
| West Virginia | Daubert-type | Wilt v. Buracker, 443 S.E.2d 196 (W. Va. 1993) | 4th Cir. |
| Wisconsin | Daubert-type | Wis. Stat. §907.02 (2011) | 7th Cir. |
| Wyoming | Daubert-type | Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyo. 1999) | 10th Cir. |
| Puerto Rico | Daubert-type | P.R. Rules of Evidence (2009), Rules 702–703 | 1st Cir. |
| U.S. Virgin Islands | Daubert-type | Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence (2017), Rule 702 | 3rd Cir. |
| Guam | Daubert-type | Guam Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 | 9th Cir. |
| Northern Mariana Islands | Daubert-type | NMI Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 | 9th Cir. |
| American Samoa | Daubert-type | High Court of American Samoa practice, looking to the Federal Rules of Evidence | — |
Expert qualification turns on knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education under the forum’s evidence rule. Our opinions stay inside contractor expertise: installation, workmanship, maintenance, refrigerant handling, and code compliance.
Engineering-judgment questions and certificate-of-merit affidavits — Texas ch. 150, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and others — go to a Professional Engineer licensed in the project state.
The benchmark is the code edition adopted where the work was permitted, the state’s contractor licensing rules, and the manufacturer’s requirements — never Florida rules exported.
Educational reference for counsel and claims professionals, current as of 2026-10-01. Not legal advice. Evidence standards, repose periods, and pre-suit requirements change by statute, rule amendment, and decision, and their application varies by claim type — confirm controlling authority with counsel before relying on any entry.