This is an insurance coverage and bad faith action involving a water loss under a homeowners policy. Safeco issued a homeowners policy to Plaintiffs Tessa and Tyrell Bradley for the policy period from September 24, 2022, to September 24, 2023 (the “Policy”). The claim arose in December 2022, when the Bradleys reported that a hot water line had burst in a bathroom, causing water damage throughout the home.
Pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”) respectfully requested that the Court exclude Plaintiff’s claims handling expert, Jack Thomas, for the failure of his report to comply with the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Insurance Expert Witness
Jack D. Thomas has 53 years of professional experience as a claims adjuster in the insurance industry and in representing consumers.
Discussion by the Court
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires that all retained experts produce a report containing a “complete statement” of all opinions the witness will express as well as: (i) “the basis and reasons for them”; (ii) “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them”; (iii) “any exhibits that will be used”; (v) a “list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert”; and (vi) “a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.”
Defendant argued that “the report produced by Plaintiff’s claims handling expert, Jack Thomas, contains none of this information.” The Court found that Thomas’ report is replete with conclusory statements.
However, the report did broadly state that in Thomas’ opinion, based on his experience as a professional adjuster and the facts of this case, Defendant violated unspecified provisions of WAC 284-30-330. Thomas’ report also appeared to provide some reasons for this opinion. For example, his report states: “When the insureds submitted their claim with Proof of Loss many months after the event, Safeco essentially ignored the submission. Safeco’s regulatory obligation was to provide a response to the claim.”
Analysis
Initially, the Court agreed with Defendant that Thomas’ report lacked exhibits that will be used to summarize or support his opinions; a list of all publications authored by Thomas in the previous 10 years; a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, Thomas testified as an expert; and a statement of the compensation that Thomas is to be paid for his study and testimony. However, the “Declaration of Jack Thomas” that was filed with Plaintiffs’ response on Nov. 17, 2025, brought his report into sufficient (though hardly exemplary) compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Moreover, the Court has already forgiven the untimeliness of Plaintiffs’ response.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s claims handling expert, Jack Thomas.
Key Takeaway
While Plaintiffs’ actions here are unimpressive, the Court found that they are harmless with regard to the Defendant, and thus the automatic exclusion of Thomas’ report was not warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Bradley V. Safeco Insurance Company Of America |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv5458 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Western |
| Order Date: | January 14, 2026 |
Leave a Reply