This case arises from a fire that occurred on April 13, 2020 at the Nashville home of Ethan and Ashley Colclasure. The Colclasures’ home, at the time, was insured by a policy (“Policy”) issued by Plaintiff Central Mutual Insurance Company (“CMIC”). Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, CMIC paid a substantial sum to the Colclasures to reimburse them for the costs incurred in repairing the damage caused by the fire. CMIC brought this action as subrogee of the Colclasures against Defendants Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, Ferguson U.S. Holdings, Inc., Ferguson-Showroom No. 907, and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC No. 20 (referred to collectively herein, in the singular, as “Ferguson” or “the Defendant”), to recover the sums it paid to its insureds.
Ferguson supplied and installed an outdoor gas grill, the Superior Equipment Solutions d/b/a Artisan Grills Model No. ARTP-36 (the “grill”), in the outdoor patio/lanai area of the house.
In April 2020, Ethan Colclasure used the grill to sear steaks. Basically, there is no dispute that Ethan Colclasure neglected to turn the grill off, causing the fire that led to catastrophic damage to the home.
The Plaintiff identified as retained experts both Jerry R. Carter, a fire scene origin and cause investigator, and Randy M. Grundy, an executive general adjuster and claims management professional and expert in evaluating catastrophic residential property damage claims. Defendants, however, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained experts.
Fire Investigation Expert Witness
Jerry R. Carter is an International Association of Arson Investigators Certified Fire Investigator, IAAI Evidence Collection Technician, IAAI Certified Instructor, National Fire Protection Association Certified Fire Protection Specialist, National Association of Fire Investigators Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator, and NAFI Certified Fire Investigator Instructor who performs origin and cause investigations of residential, commercial, and industrial properties.
Claims Handling Expert Witness
Randy Mark Grundy is a highly experienced Executive General Adjuster and claims management professional with expertise in employee dishonesty, extra expense claims, heavy equipment, commercial property, and inland marine transportation.
Discussion by the Court
A. Exclusion of Carter’s Testimony
Ferguson argued, first, that Carter’s testimony must be excluded because it is neither relevant nor reliable, insofar as his opinions are not based on sufficient facts or data, are not the product of reliable principles and methods, and rely entirely on “anecdotal evidence and improper extrapolation.”
Alternatively, the Defendant contended that Carter’s testimony should be excluded under Rule 37(c), based on the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), because the opinions in his expert report are not accompanied by the basis and reasons for each opinion or the facts and data considered in forming each opinion.
Regarding the latter argument, the Court observed that Carter’s expert report was clearly deficient, insofar as it merely pronounced Carter’s conclusions without providing any indication of how he reached them. That failure was harmless, however, because the Defendant deposed Carter at length regarding the bases for his opinions.
Carter’s opinions are that (1) “the Artisan grill and insulated jacket were not installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions as the assembly was positioned only 2.5 inches from the combustible wall assembly and is required to be installed 5.75 from combustible components”; (2) “had the grill and jacket assembly been properly installed, with the required 5.75″ clearance to combustible components, the fire would not have occurred”; and (3) “even with the grill operating for more than 20 hours, had it been properly installed, the fire would not have occurred.”
Here, although Carter claimed that he employed the “scientific method” every time he analyzes a fire and that the scientific method requires him to collect data, formulate hypotheses, and test those hypotheses , the record established that he did not test his governing hypothesis.
The Court held that Carter’s opinions amount to no more than unsupported speculation and, as such, are inadmissible.
B. Exclusion of Grundy’s Testimony
Ferguson asserted that the Plaintiff’s disclosure of Grundy as a retained expert did not comply with Rule 26(a) and that the failure is neither harmless nor substantially justified. The Defendant pointed out that, although Grundy was disclosed in the September 19, 2025 disclosure, that disclosure was not accompanied by an expert report, much less an expert report that included all of the items listed in Rule 26(a). In fact, the only document pertaining to Grundy that accompanied the disclosure was his CV.
The Plaintiff had not shown that it complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or that its failure to do so is substantially justified or harmless. This case is now scheduled for trial in less than 90 days. As a result, Ferguson’s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff’s retained expert, Randy Grundy, was granted by the Court under Rule 37(c), based on the Plaintiff’s complete failure to comply with Rule 26 and failure to show that the failure was harmless or substantially justified.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained experts, Jerry R. Carter and Randy M. Grundy.
Key Takeaway
No matter how qualified Carter may be, his subjective belief—supported by nothing more than the grill’s setback requirements and his conjecture that the manufacturer must have done some testing to support those requirements—is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Central Mutual Insurance Company V. Ferguson Enterprises, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv661 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Tennessee Middle |
| Order Date: | May 04, 2026 |
Leave a Reply