This case arises from an insurance coverage dispute regarding damage to Plaintiff O’Reilly Hotel Partners–Champions Circle, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) hotel complex in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Property”). The Property consists of various buildings, including a hotel tower, a conference center, and a golf clubhouse. The case involves multiple insurance policies and multiple insurance claims stemming from events that occurred on different dates.
Defendant Continental Casualty Insurance Company challenged the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained expert witnesses, Mike Krismer and Michael Barclay.
Construction Expert Witnesses
Mike Thomas Krismer, CIEC, has over 45 years of experience in structural repair and building renovation of residential, commercial, and public buildings. His primary focus has been water damage as it relates to the building envelope and structure.
Michael C. Barclay is a general contractor and cost estimator. Barclay has knowledge of the condition of the Project. He has experience and expertise in construction, bidding, and construction scheduling and sequencing issues associated with the Project, as well as cost estimating for the repair of this and similar buildings and sites.
Discussion by the Court
Mike Krismer
Plaintiff designated Krismer as an expert on water mitigation and water damage, stating that he is expected to testify “regarding the industry standard for inspecting, documenting, moisture mapping, and scoping remediation and repair of water-damaged materials.” He was also designated as an expert regarding the “reasonable and necessary scope of repairs required by the losses in question.”
Analysis
First, Defendant argued that under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Krismer is not qualified as an expert on insurance contract interpretation. Second, Defendant argued that Krismer did not support his opinions regarding the amount and cost of repairs with the necessary underlying facts, data, and verifiable methodology.
Krismer’s CV lists his qualifications regarding water mitigation and water damage, and Plaintiff proffered Krismer as an expert for that purpose. Despite this, Krismer’s expert report contains opinions about what Defendant should pay under the insurance policy based on his interpretation of the policy’s terms and coverage. Because Krismer is not qualified as an expert on insurance policy application or interpretation, the Court determined that his testimony on that subject is inadmissible.
Krismer’s report included a publication on how to evaluate electrical equipment exposed to water damage, images that appear to identify roof leaks with labels such as “identified as new” or “identified as old,” and a final report concluding that Cavalry Construction’s work was defective because a list of repairs needs to be completed.
The report did not explain what methodology, if any, was used in generating these images. It also did not explain what “identified as new” and “identified as old” mean, or what they are new or old in reference to. Specifically, it was unclear whether the reference point for the new/old distinction was a storm that Plaintiff claimed caused the damage or Cavalry Construction’s allegedly defective construction.
The Court held that Krismer’s testimony is inadmissible because it is vague and not supported by adequate underlying facts, data, or methodology.
Michael Barclay
Defendant argued that Barclay’s opinions are supported solely with an estimate of purported repair costs and a repair estimate, which, standing alone, failed to satisfy the requirements of an expert report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
Barclay’s report consisted of two-page repair cost estimate, a table of permit fees, and a chart adding contingency fees. However, there was no narrative as to the methodology utilized by Barclay in preparing the estimate and no basis for the total included in the estimates—just various unit prices and line items included in the estimate. Because Barclay’s report did not include the basis for his opinions or the facts and data that were considered, it did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Having concluded that Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) the Court now determines in its discretion whether to strike Barclay’s report and opinions or to impose some lesser sanction, like leave to amend. Here, trial is in less than four weeks, discovery has closed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s expert challenges after the Court required expedited briefing. As a result, the Court determined that Barclay’s expert testimony is inadmissible and Barclay is precluded from testifying as an expert witness in this matter.
Held
The Court granted Defendant’s motions to strike or limit the opinions and testimony of Mike Krismer and Michael Barclay.
Key Takeaway
Defendants are correct that Krismer’s report failed to indicate what facts and what methodology or approach underlies the opinions. Reliability considerations such as these are particularly important in a case like this where part of the dispute depends upon whether Defendant used the right methodology to evaluate water damage.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | O’Reilly Hotel Partners-Champions Circle, LLC V. Allied Property And Casualty Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 4:25cv165 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Northern |
| Order Date: | December 18, 2025 |
Leave a Reply