A current appellate choice affords an instructive instance of how procedural missteps and inadequate professional disclosures can show deadly to a policyholder’s insurance coverage declare. 1 The case arose from property injury allegedly attributable to Hurricane Irma in 2017. After a protracted claims and litigation course of, the dispute centered not on whether or not injury occurred, however whether or not the policyholder might current dependable, admissible proof by professional witnesses to show causation and the extent of loss.
The policyholder argued that its main professional, John Micali, a normal contractor with over thirty years of expertise, had offered a sound and dependable opinion linking the injury to Hurricane Irma. Micali had carried out a visible inspection of the roof, reviewed climate information, and testified that he noticed indicators in line with wind injury. He concluded, with what he described as an affordable diploma {of professional} certainty, that Hurricane Irma brought on the injury in query. The policyholder contended that the district courtroom had taken too inflexible an method in making use of the Daubert commonplace for professional admissibility and failed to understand the pliability inherent in that authorized framework.
The second professional, Rami Boaziz, was the general public adjuster who had labored on the declare and ready the restore estimate. Though initially disclosed as a truth witness, Boaziz’s affidavit was submitted as a part of the opposition to the insurer’s movement for abstract judgment, and the policyholder asserted that the insurer would endure no shock or prejudice from the admission of his testimony since he had been concerned from the start of the claims course of.
The insurer responded with a agency problem to the admissibility of each consultants. They argued that Micali’s opinion lacked scientific rigor and amounted to nothing greater than ipse dixit—“it’s so as a result of I say so.” They identified that Micali didn’t conduct any calculations to find out the wind speeds essential to dislodge the tiles, didn’t examine different attainable causes of the injury, and had no data of the roof’s pre-loss situation except for a single satellite tv for pc picture.
For Boaziz, the insurer emphasised that he had not been disclosed as an professional, had submitted no professional report, and was launched far too late within the proceedings—after the shut of discovery and in response to dispositive motions. In line with the insurer, these have been textbook violations of the Federal Guidelines of Civil Process and merited exclusion of each witnesses. With out admissible professional testimony, they argued, the policyholder couldn’t meet its burden of proof, and abstract judgment was acceptable.
The Eleventh Circuit sided completely with the insurer. In a per curiam opinion, the courtroom upheld the exclusion of Micali’s testimony, discovering that his methodology lacked enough factual assist and failed the reliability commonplace required below Rule 702 and Daubert. The courtroom famous that professional opinions should be grounded in additional than mere expertise and that Micali’s failure to rule out different causes, carry out technical evaluation, or present pre-loss baseline information rendered his conclusions speculative.
As for Boaziz, the courtroom held that the policyholder’s failure to well timed disclose him as an professional, coupled with the absence of an professional report, violated Rule 26. The policyholder’s makes an attempt to reclassify Boaziz as a rebuttal professional have been deemed unpersuasive. The courtroom discovered no substantial justification or harmlessness within the late disclosure.
As a result of each consultants have been excluded, the courtroom affirmed abstract judgment in favor of the insurer, concluding that the policyholder lacked any admissible proof to show that Hurricane Irma brought on the claimed damages.
The primary lesson is that professional testimony should be each well timed and methodologically sound. Courts won’t settle for professional opinions that relaxation solely on the professional’s say-so, regardless of how skilled they could be. The rules behind the opinion should be testable, supported by enough information, and reliably utilized.
Second, procedural guidelines governing professional disclosures should be strictly adopted. Itemizing somebody as a truth witness isn’t sufficient if they are going to be relied upon to supply opinion testimony; formal designation as an professional and submission of a Rule 26-compliant report are required. Public adjusters are sometimes truth and opinion witnesses and ought to be disclosed with extra formality if they’re providing opinions.
Lastly, policyholders mustn’t assume that an insurer’s prior data of a witness’s involvement will excuse procedural deficiencies. Courts have proven growing willingness to implement disclosure deadlines and exclude key testimony when these guidelines should not adopted, even when doing so successfully ends the case.
I beforehand said in Insurance coverage Protection Instances Can Be Gained or Misplaced Primarily based on Professional Witnesses and The Preparation of Their Reviews and Testimony:
“With out proof, how can a policyholder win a case? Getting your professional witness thrown out earlier than a trial even begins is sort of a bomb exploding in your protection case.”
For these wishing to review these factors in additional element, I counsel studying Nice Professional Witnesses Are Essential to Property Insurance coverage Instances.
Thought For The Day
“By no means go to a physician whose workplace crops have died. By no means belief a witness who smiles throughout cross-exam.”
—Erma Bombeck
1 4539 Pinetree LLC v. Sure Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 24-12713, 2025 WL 1823127 (11th Cir. July 2, 2025).