Generally, in Florida, when there is a difference of opinions between each party’s expert, the jury gets to decide who’s right, not the judge. But there has been a trend by insurance companies in the first-party property context of taking their expert’s report before the judge and arguing, in essence, “our expert’s right, the insured’s … Continue Reading
Insurance companies hire all kinds of experts to help them for all kinds of reasons. The problem is that some experts are not honest and never try to find the truth. The other problem is some policyholders or their under-financed attorneys do not hire experts or very good experts.… Continue Reading
On March 28, 2017, a New Jersey federal district court found an insured’s evidence supporting their property damage coverage claim was sufficient to survive the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.1… Continue Reading
A recent case filed in the Western District of Texas highlights the importance of retaining experts to assist in evaluating the cause of loss early in the claim process. In White Lodging Services Corporation et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company,1 a hotel development and management company filed suit against Liberty Mutual over a … Continue Reading
Missouri has adopted a new standard for expert witness testimony. The old standard was based upon a statute, while the new standard follows the Daubert1 standard. In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence overturned the Frye2 standard which had been in place since 1923. Frye … Continue Reading
As we enter a new year, FEMA has issued WYO Bulletin W-16091, “Guidance on the Use of Expert Services.” The purpose of the memorandum is “to ensure transparent and consistent claims handling for all policyholders” and to provide “guidance on the use of services provided by subject-matter experts as part of specific claims investigations.”… Continue Reading
In Illinois, the decision to whether to admit expert testimony falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. A person will be allowed to testify as an expert witness if: His or her experience and qualifications afford him or her knowledge that is not common to laypersons, and his or her testimony will aid … Continue Reading
A recent decision by a Massachusetts District Court addressed an important issue: When is a witness not entitled to expert fees at deposition?1… Continue Reading
A question lawyers representing insureds often must answer when preparing for trial in a first-party property insurance claim is, “In what capacity can I use the public adjuster as a witness?” In Pennsylvania, the Court of Common Pleas for Lycoming County has stated that a public adjuster on a contingent fee may not testify as … Continue Reading
In most first-party property insurance disputes, experts are frequently required to provide opinions and testimony on the cost to repair a property. An insurance company will often seek to exclude an insured’s expert on the basis that the opinions are not reliable because the expert did not personally inspect the property.… Continue Reading
In a time where expert reports are more the norm than the exception, it’s important to remember that a great expert report is only as good as the expert delivering it. Delivery here is being used in the sense of delivering a timely, well written report and verbally delivering a succinct explanation of the methodology used … Continue Reading
As promised yesterday in Wildfire and Smoke Claims – A Case Burning With Issues That Public Adjusters Should Study, today’s post will be the first study from the recent decision in Falcon v. State Farm Lloyds.1 The initial question is how long has the expert has been doing what he is asked to do. The … Continue Reading
Wildfire cases are unique and have many evidentiary issues. Public adjusters have been making claims for damage by fire, heat, and especially smoke. State Farm and its able trial counsel successfully appear to be fighting back in Falcon v State Farm Lloyds.1… Continue Reading
Insurance companies and their attorneys bet they can beat me for a living – they are professional litigators and have a frequent motive to deny or underpay claims. My firm and I are in their way from profits and bad publicity for their manner of delay and denial way of life in the insurance claims … Continue Reading
When suing to recoup roof replacement costs in the Lone Star State you need an expert to prove up damages. Texas courts won’t consider a homeowner’s testimony as competent evidence where a roof was replaced and there was a question of the reasonable and necessary cost of the replacement. In Wortham Brothers, Inc. v. Haffner,1 … Continue Reading
Depending on the nature of the loss and damages to property involved in insurance claims, the damage investigation can be expert intensive. Engineers or other structural experts can play a necessary and vital role in proving the cause of some types of damage. Having a qualified expert to give an opinion as to cause and … Continue Reading
Hail storms across Texas have brought out the worst conduct in some insurance companies. We have found some, if not many, insurance adjusters making assessments of damage without closely inspecting for roof damage. It is hard to find subtle indicators of hail damage and water leaks on roofs without climbing up there and looking for … Continue Reading
In Colorado, insurance companies often deny claims based on exclusions for “wear and tear,” “repeated seepage and leakage,” or “failure to maintain.” Often insurance companies will hire experts to examine the property months or years after a loss, hoping the expert is willing to perform an outcome oriented examination—aimed at substantiating the insurance company’s denial … Continue Reading
On November 16, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the need for plaintiffs and their attorneys to not only ensure their experts are well qualified but also that they can prove it to the court’s satisfaction before heading to trial.1… Continue Reading
Virtually every insurance company I have deposed or talked with (whether corporate representative, adjuster, or some other representative) has properly agreed with the following, non-exhaustive list of non-delegable claim handling standards (many of which are codified in states such as Florida, see, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 626.9541 and Fla. Admin. Code § 69B-220.201): (1) Insurers … Continue Reading
Claims between policyholders and their insurance companies can seem simple. I often hear, “My roof didn’t leak prior to the storm and now it does. How can the insurance company say it wasn’t a result of the storm?” Generally, when this is the case, the insurance company has hired an expert to opine about what … Continue Reading
If you have been following our blog, you might have read Expert Witnesses Must Remember Three Steps: (1) Qualifications (2) Reliability, and (3) Helpfulness, which discussed the U.S. District Court ruling in Palm Bay Yacht Club Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 10-23685-CIV, 2012 WL 1345317 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2012). In that case, … Continue Reading
