Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
A claim being denied doesn’t necessarily mean an expert has to be hired in the case. But when an expert is needed the correct legal process must be followed. This is illustrated in a 2024 opinion from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The opinion is styled, Dora Doss Thompson v. State Farm Lloyds.
This case arises out of an insurer’s denial of a property damage claim. Defendant State Farm Lloyds (“State Farm”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, State Farm’s motion was granted.
Plaintiff Dora Doss Thompson obtained an insurance policy (“Policy”) from State Farm, covering wind and hail damage occurring between April 12, 2021 and April 12, 2022 at her home located at 21014 Pricewood Manor Court, Cypress, Texas 77433 (the “Property”). Thompson claims that a September 28, 2021 storm caused significant wind and hail damage to her Property.
On February 11, 2022, Martin Langley, a representative of Shingle Hut, LLC, a roofing contractor, inspected the Property. Kevin Catchings, Shingle Hut’s Owner and Project Manager, subsequently sent a February 14, 2022 letter to Thompson, asserting that her roof damage was caused by the September 28, 2021 hailstorm. Catchings concluded that the damage required a “complete reroof and any associated repairs . . . which will cost $44,419.05.” Catchings attached to his letter a Hail History Report from StormerSite, which indicates that a September 28, 2021 hailstorm at the Property resulted in approximately one- inch hail.
On February 16, 2022, Thompson reported a hail damage claim to State Farm. State Farm promptly commenced an investigation, assigning Seek Now, a third-party contractor, to inspect the Property. The Seek Now inspector did not find any wind or hail damage to the roof, but instead found “covered damage caused by hail to the [gutter system and a single window screen].” Seek Now further determined that the roof had granule loss and blistering caused by wear, tear, and deterioration expected of a nearly 15-year-old roof.
Following the inspection, State Farm notified Thompson in a February 24, 2022 letter that the covered loss amounted to $541.92. Because the covered loss fell below the $14,186 deductible, State Farm did not make any payment to Thompson. On March 24, 2022, State Farm conducted a second inspection of the Property. The second inspection also revealed no evidence of wind or hail damage to the roof.
On December 12, 2022, Thompson filed this lawsuit in Texas state court asserting claims against State Farm for breach of contract and various violations of Texas Insurance Code Chapters 541 and 542. State Farm removed the lawsuit to federal district court on June 23, 2023.
State Farm’s expert witness, Jordan Beckner, inspected the Property in May 2023. Beckner has produced a Roof Inspection Report, which concludes that no hailstorm occurred at the Property on September 28, 2021. Beckner also found that any damage to Thompson’s roof was caused by wear, tear, and deterioration over time, which is not a covered loss under the Policy.
As an initial matter, the Court addressed State Farm’s objections to Thompson’s summary judgment evidence. State Farm objects to “an unauthenticated ‘estimate’ prepared by a ‘Martin Langley,’ an un-designated ‘expert,’ to support the notion that there is hail damage based on an inspection Mr. Langley reportedly performed more than five months after the reported date of loss.” The so-called “estimate” is accompanied by a February 14, 2022 letter signed by Catchings, Shingle Hut’s owner. It is not clear whether the opinions in question are Langley’s opinions or Catchings’s opinions. The Court need not engage in a lengthy discussion of whether this “opinion” evidence is admissible, however, because neither Langley nor Catchings has been designated by Thompson as a testifying expert. This is dispositive. The Fifth Circuit has held that “if a party offers opinion evidence on the hearing of a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine in advance whether that evidence would be admissible if the trial were on the merits.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), failure to disclose its expert witnesses, a district court must exclude the testimony of that witness “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” There is no indication here that the failure to designate Langley and/or Catchings was substantially justified or harmless. Thus, the Court will sustain State Farm’s objection to the estimate.
The remainder of the opinion discusses other issues in the case but the important take away from this case is that Experts have to be properly designated.