This matter arises out of an insurance claim filed by Plaintiffs, Grayson Smith
and Savannah Smith, related to a tree impact that caused damage to their property located at 2811 Pebblewood Drive, Valdosta, Georgia 31602 on August 30, 2023.
Auto-Owners retained expert Brent Boyd, a forensic engineer, to analyze the damage to the property. Plaintiffs’ arguments largely center on reliability. They argued that Boyd spent too little time conducting his inspection, employed a flawed and haphazard methodology, and did not adequately consider the findings of other engineers.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
Brent A. Boyd is a licensed engineer who received his engineering degree from the University of Alabama in 2010. He has inspected numerous properties affected by tree impacts and conducted evaluations of the damage thereto, including whether the structure had laterally shifted.
Discussion by the Court
Boyd determined that there was tree impact damage to the rear and left elevations of the property, specifically the rear sunroom and adjacent living room, which included shifting isolated portions of framing elements in that area.
i. Experience and Qualifications
Plaintiffs took issue with the fact Boyd had been licensed for less than four years at the time of the inspection at issue. They also stated that nearly all of his professional time is spent “looking at damaged roofs for insurance companies” and he was retained by Defendant 918 times.
The Plaintiffs argued that Boyd lacked the necessary qualifications, noting that he did not hold a graduate degree, has never presented outside his own company, and has not published any work in the field of engineering.
Firstly, the Court was unpersuaded that four years is too short a time to be qualified. Boyd’s degree and licensure indicated sufficient qualifications. If, as Plaintiffs maintained, their experts are better experienced than Boyd, that information is properly put before the jury at trial, not the Court in a motion to exclude. Secondly, Boyd has experience conducting evaluations of properties affected by tree impacts, like the instant case, including assessing whether the structure had laterally shifted, meaning a foundational issue related to racking. Third, and finally, the fact Boyd has worked for Defendant 918 times cuts against Plaintiffs’ arguments. 918 claim evaluations are a significant amount of experience. If even a minority of those claims considered the issue of racking, Boyd would still be qualified to testify.
ii. Reliability
Plaintiffs stated that Boyd was present at their property for about ninety minutes and never agreed to return for a more detailed inspection. Defendant noted that Boyd’s time spent at Plaintiffs’ property allowed him to inspect “all walls under the main area of impact” and publish a 73-page, peer-reviewed engineering report.
Plaintiffs also argued that choosing which studs to measure by conducting a visual inspection is a “haphazard sampling” and “not a thorough, scientific approach,” which left “the vast majority of walls unmeasured and uninspected in any meaningful way.” This argument goes to the comprehensiveness of Boyd’s inspection, not its reliability.
Plaintiffs’ critique of Boyd’s methodology focuses on his use of his bubble level. They argued that using a one-foot bubble level on a nine-foot wall, not insisting the bubble be centered between the level’s marked lines to declare a stud to be plumb, and his own data rendered his expert opinion unreliable.
Defendants responded that it is not about the length of the level, but rather ensuring “the engineer uses it in accordance with proper scientific procedures.” The Court declared that Boyd’s choice of level is not disqualifying, particularly given his assertion he used it in compliance with proper scientific procedures.
Plaintiffs argued that Boyd did not adequately consider the findings of other engineers because his findings disagreed with the reports of Plaintiffs’ experts and he did not re-evaluate Plaintiffs’ property after reading the disagreeing reports.
At trial over a contested matter such as this one, experts are bound to disagree. Existence of disagreement neither disqualifies an expert nor renders him unreliable. And a refusal to change his findings or return to the property following the receipt of a disagreeing report did not render Boyd’s original findings unreliable.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brent A. Boyd.
Key Takeaway
An expert’s method need not be perfect, nor must he apply it perfectly. That is, a minor flaw in an expert’s reasoning or slight modification of an otherwise reliable method will not render an expert’s opinion per se inadmissible.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Smith V. Auto-Owners Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 7:24cv83 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Georgia Middle |
| Order Date: | February 13, 2026 |
Leave a Reply