Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Evaluation

  • Engineering Expert was Allowed to Opine on Hurricane Damage

    Engineering Expert was Allowed to Opine on Hurricane Damage

    On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura made landfall in Southwest Louisiana. In the original complaint, The Pentecostal Church of DeQuincy (“TPCD”) alleged that it sustained damage from the Hurricane, and that Church Mutual has underestimated the cost of repairs. The five (5) buildings considered as “Covered Property” at issue in this litigation are identified as the: (1) Sanctuary, (2) Activity Center, (3) Sunday School/Fellowship Hall, (4) Mobile Home, and (5) Pole Barn. During the relevant time period, Church Mutual provided coverage for the Covered Property.

    The Church reported its claimed loss on September 1, 2020. TPCD filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Lori Cox. TPCD maintained that Cox’s opinions will not assist the trier of fact, and they are unreliable and redundant.

    To begin with, TPCD argued that Cox’s testimony did not rely on any recognized engineering methodology or engineering analysis, and that she ignored a plethora of evidence.

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Lori Lynn Cox is a licensed Professional Engineer with over 25 years of experience in forensic engineering, specializing in structural failures, construction defects, premises liability, and construction-related injury investigations. She is currently Regional Manager for Engineering Design & Testing Corp. She is also licensed in 35 states and has served as a Regional Director with ProNet Group, where she led complex investigations involving property loss, liability disputes, and building performance issues.

    Want to know more about the challenges Lori Cox has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    TPCD complained that Cox’s evaluation of the Sanctuary and Sunday School buildings was limited to a review of photographs and other engineers’ reports.

    However, the Court has reviewed Cox’s expert report to address TPCD’s complaints and finds that they are unfounded. The Court noted that Cox performed a site inspection of the TPCD buildings/structures, but the Sanctuary and Sunday School had already been demolished and rebuilt.

    Next, TPCD criticized Cox’s report because she allegedly did not give adequate evaluation of the pre-existing conditions of the buildings, referring to TPCD’s previous insurance claim as a result of the 2017 tornado. Again, the Court is confused as to what TPCD is complaining about.

    After all, Cox acknowledged that there was a “fractured and bowed roof framing of the Sunday School [that] was documented following the 2017 tornado effect…. This was documented in the estimate provided by Risk Management Services.”

    TPCD complained that Cox did not perform “any mathematical equations to determine the lateral loads that were presented to the building as a result of the hurricane.”

    Again, TPCD did not explain how her methodology is inappropriate because she did not perform any engineering calculations.

    TPCD also argued that Cox’s testimony and opinions are duplicative of Church Mutual’s principal expert. Church Mutual informed the Court that their expert’s work in this matter was to perform a limited visual inspection of the sanctuary, Sunday School and multipurpose building and recommend repairs/remediation of damages, whereas Cox was supposed to inspect the structures at issue and document their conditions with regards to improvements made following Hurricane Laura and/or Hurricane Delta. Church Mutual instructed Cox to provide an opinion as to the damage that was the result of Hurricane Laura.

    Held

    The Court denied TPCD’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lori Cox.

    Key Takeaway

    Rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the court’s role as gatekeeper does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the system. Instead, vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

    Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:

    Insurance Expert’s Legal Opinions Excluded

    Construction Expert Allowed to Opine on Repair Estimates

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Pentecostal Church Of Dequincy V. Church Mutual Insurance Co S.I.
    Docket Number: 2:22cv2782
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: February 04, 2026
  • Forensic Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Interior and Roof Damages Admitted

    Forensic Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Interior and Roof Damages Admitted

    This case arose from a dispute between homeowners and their insurer over coverage. Plaintiffs, Jessi Shetler and Richard Shetler filed a claim with Defendant, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company, their insurer, for the windstorm’s damage to their roof and the interior of their home.

    Plaintiffs brought the instant first-party action sounding in breach of contract
    due to Defendant’s denial of all roofing system damages and undervaluation of the Plaintiff’s insurance claim.

    Plaintiffs’ expert, forensic engineer Sonny Gulati, opined that Plaintiffs’ roof and interior “suffered significant storm related and widespread damage” such that the roof needs to be completely replaced and the interior repaired. However, the Defendants filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Gulati.

    Forensic Engineering Expert Witness

    Sunil Sonny Gulati has over 30 years’ experience in conducting structural/geotechnical investigations including sinkhole evaluations, ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing and analysis, geotechnical design, environmental consulting, construction materials testing, supervision, and roadway construction project management.

    Want to know more about the challenges Sonny Gulati has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Basically, Gulati opined that Plaintiffs’ roof and interior “suffered significant storm related and widespread damage” such that the roof needs to be completely replaced and the interior repaired. 

    In forming this opinion, Gulati reviewed weather data, calculated wind forces, inspected the property, interviewed Plaintiff Richard Shetler, and reviewed documentation including prior evaluations, photos, and a wind history report. 

    Defendants argued that Gulati’s methodology is unreliable and his testimony unhelpful because he leaned too heavily on Richard Shetler’s interview to determine that the windstorm caused the damage to Plaintiffs’ home. 

    The Court disagreed because Gulati evaluated data, inspected the home himself, and made calculations of the same type that courts regularly find sufficiently reliable. Any weaknesses in his evaluation, such as overreliance on a biased homeowner, are better addressed through cross-examination, not exclusion, as the jury is best equipped to make credibility determinations. To sum up, Gulati’s methodology is sufficiently reliable to put before a jury, and his testimony will be helpful for the same reasons.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Sonny Gulati.

    Key Takeaway:

    Experts and their opinions need not be perfect to be admissible, and “it is not the role of the district court to make ultimate conclusions as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence.” In other words, forensic experts who rely on weather data, engineering formulas, home inspections, and their own knowledge and experience are sufficiently reliable.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Shetler Et Al V. Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 6:24cv272
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division
    Order Date: September 03, 2025