Architecture Expert’s Opinions on Causation and Damages Admitted
Posted on June 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiffs Michael Gerstman and Marie Webster, the insureds, sued Defendant Crestbrook Insurance Company (“Crestbrook”), their insurer, to recover on contractual and extracontractual theories arising from Crestbrook’s denial of their claim in this storm damage insurance coverage dispute.
Crestbrook filed a motion to strike the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Neil Hall and Kevin Funsch.
Architecture Expert Witness
Neil B. Hall is the owner and principal of Groundtruth Forensics, a consulting firm specializing in building performance, failure analysis and damage assessment.
Hall is a member of the American Institute of Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, Construction Specifications Institute, International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants, American Society of Safety Professionals and Association of State Floodplain Managers.
Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness
Kevin C. Funsch is an insurance adjuster and engineer with a solid background in claims handling and estimating. He has experience in adjusting property losses, performing appraisals, and writing expert reports.
Discussion by the Court
Neil Hall
Crestbrook filed a motion to strike Hall’s opinions on the basis that they are irrelevant, and it contended that his opinion regarding the full replacement of the roof should be excluded because it is unreliable and lacked a clear or verifiable methodology.
Crestbrook first contended that Hall’s opinions should be excluded as irrelevant because there is no dispute as to the scope of the damages at issue in this case. Plaintiffs countered that Hall’s opinions on causation and damages will certainly help the trier of fact understand the cause and extent of the damages at issue in this case.
Hall’s expert opinions suggested that there may be more damages at issue than Crestbrook is willing to acknowledge when it maintained that it was only obligated to pay the cost of replacing the individual damaged tiles.
Therefore, the Court declared that Hall’s opinions regarding the cause of the damage would assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining a fact in issue.
Crestbrook also contended that Hall’s opinions regarding the necessity of replacing the entire roof in the absence of available matching tiles are unreliable and not based on any clear or verifiable methodology. However, Hall’s report and CV plainly showed that his reliance on his experience makes his opinions on the repairs required to bring the Property back to pre-loss condition sufficiently reliable for purposes of Rule 702.
And to the extent that Crestbrook maintained that Hall did not make “any effort to determine whether ‘matching’ tiles were available,” the Court held that this fact, if true, would not undermine the reliability of his opinion that the entire roof would need to be replaced if matching tiles were unavailable in sufficient quantity.
Kevin Funsch
Crestbrook contended that Funsch’s estimate and opinions related to the full replacement of the roof are irrelevant because they will not assist the jury in determining whether Crestbrook underpaid the claim.
It maintained that they are unreliable insofar as they rely on Hall’s opinion that the roof may need to be completely replaced if there are not sufficient matching tiles with which to replace the damaged tiles.
The Court disagreed with Crestbrook’s assertion that Funsch’s opinions and estimate are irrelevant because they will not assist the jury in determining whether Crestbrook underpaid the claim. This contention is based on Crestbrook’s position that it is not required to replace the entire roof under the Policy and that the estimated cost of replacing the roof is not relevant.
Because there remains a genuine issue of fact as to whether Crestbrook was required to pay the cost of replacing the entire roof in the absence of the availability of matching tiles, the Court held that Funsch’s estimate regarding the cost of replacing the roof is relevant.
Crestbrook contended that Funsch’s estimate and opinions related to the full replacement of the roof are unreliable insofar as they rely on Hall’s opinion that the entire roof may need to be replaced if there are insufficient matching tiles to replace the damaged tiles. However, Crestbrook did not maintain that Funsch has relied on unreliable sources in determining the cost to replace the roof.
Instead, the objection seemed to be that Funsch included in his damages calculation the cost of replacing the roof based on Hall’s opinion that the entire roof may need to be replaced. However, the Court held that this does not make Funsch’s calculation unreliable for purposes of Rule 702.
Held
The Court denied Crestbrook’s motions to strike the testimony of Plaintiffs’ testifying experts Dr. Neil Hall and Kevin Funsch.
Key Takeaway:
Hall relied on his own inspection of the property, as well as weather data. His attached CV demonstrates his extensive education and professional experience in engineering and architecture.
By extension, Funsch’s estimate and opinions are reliable because they are based on Hall’s recommendations, which, in turn, are grounded in reliable weather data and decades of experience. The opinions are also relevant, as they help determine the cost of the repairs.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Gerstman Et Al V. Crestbrook Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv635 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Northern |
| Order Date: | June 09, 2025 |
