This case arises from a claim for wind/hail damage that allegedly occurred on or around December 5, 2021. The damage occurred to Plaintiffs’ property located at 16207 E. 47th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma. State Farm inspected the home twice and found minor hail damage. State Farm did not observe any hail damage to the roof itself. According to State Farm, the minor hail damage observed did not exceed the deductible; therefore, no payment was issued.
Plaintiff designated R. Sean Wiley as a construction and insurance industry expert to testify regarding his assessment of hail and wind damage to Plaintiffs’ roof and the estimated replacement cost.
Defendant sought an order barring Plaintiff from calling Wiley as an expert witness on the grounds that his opinions were unreliable and inadmissible under Rule 702.
Insurance Expert Witness
Randy (Sean) Wiley is the President of JW Construction Management Inc. and works as insurance appraisal and umpire in insurance claims. He also works as a construction consultant for insurance carriers.
Discussion by the Court
The Court held that Wiley is qualified to provide expert opinions in the areas of his proposed testimony.
Reliability and Relevance
Defendant challenged Wiley’s expert opinions as speculative solely because Defendant believed Wiley was first retained after an “historic Father’s Day storm struck Plaintiffs’ neighborhood” in June 2023. Based on this belief, Defendant assumed “Wiley’s ‘multiple inspections’ likely occurred after the Father’s Day storm,” and Defendant faulted Wiley for failing to address that storm “or provide an explanation of how he links all of the alleged damage he reports to the 2021/2022 storms” underlying Plaintiffs’ insurance claim.
Plaintiff stated that “Wiley first inspected the Bales’ home on June 3, 2022, more than a year before the Father’s Day storm” and provided a one-page affidavit from Wiley so stating. Wiley also stated that his report “discusses damage that was present during my June 3, 2022 inspection.”
The Court found that Defendant’s criticism of Wiley’s opinions was unfounded.
Defendant attempted to avoid this conclusion by attacking Wiley’s affidavit as an untimely supplemental report. Defendant argued at length that Rule 26(a) required Wiley to provide a complete statement of his opinions and their basis in his original report and that his affidavit is a supplemental disclosure that should be disregarded.
Rule 26
The Court held that Wiley’s affidavit served only to correct Defendant’s factual error. Apparently, Defendant elected not to depose Wiley but assumed facts regarding his work based on certain deposition testimony of Bales. But for Defendant’s error, Wiley’s affidavit would have been unnecessary. The affidavit consisted of four simple sentences identifying the dates of Wiley’s inspections and stating that he personally observed the damage discussed in his report. Except the first date, which became material solely because of Defendant’s motion, Wiley’s original report contained the same information. Plaintiffs’ new “disclosure” was not made because they “learn[ed] that in some material respect [Wiley’s report] is incomplete or incorrect.”
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert R. Sean Wiley.
Key Takeaway:
Defendant made an incorrect factual assumption concerning the timing of Wiley’s first inspection. With that mistake corrected, Defendant had no substantial basis to challenge the reliability of Wiley’s opinions regarding the storm damage and the cost of necessary repairs.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Bales Et Al V. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company |
| Docket Number: | 5:22cv851 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Oklahoma Western |
| Order Date: | August 16, 2024 |
Leave a Reply