This case is a breach of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract due to Defendant CSAA General Insurance Company denying Plaintiff George Richardson’s roof damage claim that occurred on September 23, 2023.
Defendant filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Michael Pruitt.
Engineering Expert Witness
Michael Pruitt, P.E. has over 30 years of experience in engineering, code compliance, and construction. He has conducted more than 1,500 forensic investigations. His expertise spans commercial and residential roof inspections, foundation investigations, building envelopes, and structural evaluations.
Discussion by the Court
Pruitt’s Qualifications
Although Defendant did not generally challenge the qualifications of Pruitt to testify as an expert, it did argue that at least one of his opinions should be excluded because he does not have any metallurgy expertise. Plaintiff countered that Pruitt is an engineer who serves primarily as an insurance defense expert witness and, in fact, Pruitt has worked for Defendant in the past and is currently involved in one of Defendant’s cases. Based on Pruitt’s more than 30 years of engineering and construction experience, as well as his extensive forensic investigation experience, the Court concluded that he possessed the necessary skill, experience or knowledge to be qualified to offer the opinions in his report.
As it specifically relates to his opinion regarding degradation of the metal roofing based on loss of granules, Pruitt offered an explanation supporting his opinion based on the manufacturer’s sales materials. Nothing about this opinion indicated that Pruitt needed to be a metallurgist to opine on the effects of loss of granules from the roof at hail impact sites, particularly considering the roof manufacturer’s own product material statements.
Reliable Methodology of Pruitt’s Opinions
Defendant argued that Pruitt’s opinions lacked a reliable methodology because his opinions were contradicted by the roofing manufacturer’s testing and product materials. Defendant further argued that Pruitt’s opinions were inadmissible because he had conducted no independent testing, and his opinions were not supported by peer-reviewed publications.
Pruitt set forth his opinions and the basis upon which he arrived at those opinions in his report. In doing so, he documented the observable damage and explained what damage he believed to be hail damage and its severity.
Much of Defendant’s Daubert Motion appeared to rely not on Pruitt’s report or his opinions expressed therein, but on his responses to deposition questions regarding the roofing materials manufacturer’s product information.
The fact that Defendant disagreed with Pruitt’s conclusions or believed other evidence contradicted those conclusions was not a basis upon which to exclude Pruitt’s opinions. To the extent Defendant disagreed with Pruitt’s opinions and conclusions, “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof were the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”
Therefore, the Court concluded that Pruitt’s opinions relied on and were based on a sufficiently reliable methodology to be admissible.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Michael Pruitt.
Key Takeaway:
An expert’s personal experience, training, method of observation and deductive reasoning could be sufficiently reliable to constitute valid methodology. It should be noted that Pruitt’s method did not involve application of any controversial scientific process or theory.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Richardson V. CSAA General Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 6:24cv247 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma |
| Order Date: | June 05, 2025 |
Leave a Reply