This suit arises from alleged damage to Plaintiff, Curt Marcantel’s primary residence in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and his ranch in Singer, Louisiana, during Hurricane Laura. At all relevant times the properties were insured under policies issued by State Farm. Plaintiff filed suit in this court on June 6, 2022, alleging that State Farm had not timely or adequately compensated him for his covered losses. Accordingly, he raised claims for breach of insurance contract and bad faith under Louisiana law.
State Farm filed a motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Stevephen Lott. In particular, State Farm argued that Lott’s opinions based on moisture meter readings conducted by Plaintiff’s expert Charles Norman do not meet the standards laid out in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1995).
Insurance Expert Witness
Stevephen Lott has been providing professional public adjuster & consulting services to Insureds and Clients across the country. Prior to this, he spent 10 years working claims for several large Insurance Carriers on the other side of the aisle. He started Integrity Claims Consultants out of a strong belief that the Insured’s interests were not being represented fairly, by both the Carrier’s he was representing and the Public Adjusting firms they were being represented by.
Discussion by the Court
Notably, Lott testified that he did not use any moisture meters to determine readings on which he based his opinion that certain repairs needed to be made to the interior of the home. Rather, Lott relied on Norman’s moisture meter readings.
State Farm challenged the scope of damages identified by Lott because he had relied on moisture meter readings conducted by Charles Norman. In two separate Daubert motions, State Farm had challenged Norman’s technique in using the moisture meter as well as his failure to account for the fact that both properties had sat in Louisiana’s humid weather without air conditioning for nearly a year before his inspection. The Court had denied those challenges as impacting the weight rather than the admissibility of Norman’s testimony. Accordingly, there was no basis for excluding or limiting Lott’s testimony.
Held
The Court denied State Farm’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Stevephen Lott.
Key Takeaway:
The Court refrained from excluding Lott’s opinions based on moisture meter readings conducted by Plaintiff’s expert Charles Norman because State Farm had previously challenged Norman’s technique in using the moisture meter as well as his failure to account for the fact that both properties had sat in Louisiana’s humid weather without air conditioning for nearly a year before his inspection. The Court had denied those challenges as impacting the weight rather than the admissibility of Norman’s testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Marcantel V. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv1511 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Louisiana Western |
| Order Date: | July 9, 2024 |
Leave a Reply