This case arose from a dispute between homeowners and their insurer over coverage. Plaintiffs, Jessi Shetler and Richard Shetler filed a claim with Defendant, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, their insurer, for the windstorm’s damage to their roof and the interior of their home.
Plaintiffs brought the instant first-party action sounding in breach of contract
due to Defendant’s denial of all roofing system damages and undervaluation of the Plaintiff’s insurance claim.
Plaintiffs’ expert, forensic engineer Sonny Gulati, opined that Plaintiffs’ roof and interior “suffered significant storm related and widespread damage” such that the roof needs to be completely replaced and the interior repaired. However, the Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Gulati.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
Sunil Sonny Gulati has over 30 years’ experience in conducting structural/geotechnical investigations including sinkhole evaluations, ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing and analysis, geotechnical design, environmental consulting, construction materials testing, supervision, and roadway construction project management.
Discussion by the Court
Basically, Gulati opined that Plaintiffs’ roof and interior “suffered significant storm related and widespread damage” such that the roof needs to be completely replaced and the interior repaired.
In forming this opinion, Gulati reviewed weather data, calculated wind forces, inspected the property, interviewed Plaintiff Richard Shetler, and reviewed documentation including prior evaluations, photos, and a wind history report.
Defendants argued that Gulati’s methodology is unreliable and his testimony unhelpful because he leaned too heavily on Richard Shetler’s interview to determine that the windstorm caused the damage to Plaintiffs’ home.
The Court disagreed because Gulati evaluated data, inspected the home himself, and made calculations of the same type that courts regularly find sufficiently reliable. Any weaknesses in his evaluation, such as overreliance on a biased homeowner, are better addressed through cross-examination, not exclusion, as the jury is best equipped to make credibility determinations. To sum up, Gulati’s methodology is sufficiently reliable to put before a jury, and his testimony will be helpful for the same reasons.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Sonny Gulati.
Key Takeaway:
Experts and their opinions need not be perfect to be admissible, and “it is not the role of the district court to make ultimate conclusions as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence.” In other words, forensic experts who rely on weather data, engineering formulas, home inspections, and their own knowledge and experience are sufficiently reliable.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Shetler Et Al V. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 6:24cv272 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division |
| Order Date: | September 03, 2025 |
Leave a Reply