Insurance Expert Allowed to Testify Regarding Industry Customs and Practices based on Experience
Posted on April 25, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Jose Verdecia sustained injuries after falling through the ceiling of his home. He claims these injuries and other damages resulted from a misrepresentation by State Farm’s adjuster, Marvin Johnson, who allegedly instructed him to inspect the attic for damage, implying that his claim would be denied otherwise.
To support his case, Plaintiff retained Earl Stigler as an expert. Stigler was prepared to testify about proper claims handling procedures and the standard of care expected from insurance adjusters.
On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff served supplemental disclosures regarding Stigler’s testimony. One week later, State Farm filed a motion to strike Stigler, arguing the disclosures were late and the testimony failed to meet Daubert standards.
State Farm later filed a supplement to its motion to strike, citing deposition testimony that it believes further supports the argument that Stigler’s opinions should be struck. State Farm argued that Stigler’s deposition revealed that Stigler’s report contained irrelevant information and opinions that were contradictory, rendering it unreliable.
Insurance Expert Witness
Earl Stigler became an adjuster in 1983. His experience includes serving as a field auto and property adjuster, an inside property damage adjuster, an inside casualty adjuster, and a senior casualty adjuster. Over the course of his career, he has adjusted more than 14,000 claims, demonstrating his expertise by successfully negotiating a $18.8 million property claim and a $3.25 million open head injury claim.
Discussion By the Court
Initial Arguments
State Farm contended that Stigler’s report and testimony lacked a reliable methodology, could not be adequately peer-reviewed for his field, and constituted “ipse dixit” (unsupported assertions). They also argued that the report contained erroneous, conflicting, and irrelevant information, making it unreliable under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Analysis
Methodology
The Court found Stigler’s methodology entirely reliable, deeply “grounded in his professional experience and training”, a career spanning back to 1983. His process involved a practical approach: reviewing the relevant records in this case and rigorously comparing them to “recognized practices in the industry that are generally accepted.” The Court recognized that Stigler’s decades in the insurance industry, coupled with his review of relevant materials, equipped him with intimate familiarity with these very standards. When State Farm declared that peer review of Stigler’s report is impossible, the Court reiterated that the rigid checklist of traditional Daubert factors doesn’t always apply. Not all Daubert factors need be met for expert testimony to be admissible. Stigler’s testimony does not involve scientific evidence and therefore any peer review need not be the rigorous scientific or technical review as might be necessary for purely scientific or technical testimony.
The Court also disagreed that Stigler’s report constitutes mere ipse dixit. Again, Stigler need not cite to “recognized scientific or technical standards.”
The Court found State Farm’s arguments concerning erroneous, irrelevant, and conflicting information similarly unavailing. All of the issues, including Stigler’s citation of the incorrect handling guidelines, can be discussed on cross examination.
Held
The Court held that Plaintiff’s expert, Earl Stigler’s testimony is reliable. Any issues concerning Stigler’s report or testimony may be discussed on cross-examination and are not grounds for exclusion.
Key Takeaways:
Courts across the country allow experts to testify regarding industry customs and practices based on experience. Stigler’s testimony does not involve scientific evidence and therefore any peer review need not be the rigorous scientific or technical review as might be necessary for purely scientific or technical testimony. State Farm was free to find its own expert in industry custom to review Stigler’s report and come to its own conclusions. Again, it is also free to question Stigler’s testimony or report on cross-examination.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Verdecia v. State Farm Lloyds |
| Doket Number: | 23-CV-00067-DC |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/odessa Division |
| Order Date: | April 1, 2025 |
