Civil Engineering Expert Did Not Rely on “Homemade Theories”
Posted on May 20, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Carleton Shockman’s property was allegedly damage by an April 2021 hailstorm. After inspecting the property, State Farm found no storm-related damage and denied coverage. Shockman invoked the policy’s appraisal process, which resulted in an award of $61,778.97, but State Farm still denied coverage.
Finally, Shockman sued State Farm, asserting claims for breach of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Shockman designated Neil Hall as an expert witness on (1) the condition of Shockman’s property “following the hail and windstorm event” and (2) “the amount of funds necessary to repair the property to its original condition.”
Hall, a licensed engineer and architect with over five decades of professional experience, concluded that hail caused the property damage on April 15, 2021.
State Farm filed a motion to exclude Hall’s testimony on three grounds: (1) Hall failed to conduct a credible investigation based on accepted standards; (2) his causation opinions are conclusory and unreliable; and (3) he began with a firm conclusion and sought only confirming evidence.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness
Neil Hall served as a commissioned officer in both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Civil Engineer Corps. He holds two degrees in Architecture, graduate degrees in Systems Management and Landscape Architecture and a Ph.D. in Urban Studies.
He is a licensed Architect, Interior Designer, Civil Engineer and Landscape Architect; a Certified Floodplain Manager; and a NFPA 1033 Certified Fire Investigator.
Discussion by the Court
1. Hall’s Methodology
First, Hall conducted an in-person inspection of the property on June 6, 2023. During this inspection, he documented the condition of the roof and other property components through photographs and direct observation. Hall then analyzed these observations in the context of potential causes.
Second, Hall consulted multiple weather-data sources to determine if weather events capable of causing the observed damage had occurred at the property. These sources included weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and storm-event data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. Hall used this data to identify an April 15, 2021, hailstorm that he concludes had wind strong enough and hail large enough to cause the observed damage.
Third, Hall reviewed claim documents and other materials related to the property and the insurance dispute. This included examining previous inspections and findings.
Finally, Hall applied his professional experience to correlate the observed damage patterns with the meteorological data, ultimately concluding that an April 15, 2021, hailstorm caused the damage to Shockman’s property.
While Hall’s execution of this methodology may be properly subject to criticism on cross-examination, the Court held that the methodology itself satisfies Daubert‘s reliability threshold because the “method is generally accepted in the relevant engineering community”—specifically, forensic engineering.
2. State Farm’s Objections
Three main contentions were raised against Hall’s methodology: (1) Hall did not conduct a credible investigation and relied on “homemade theories”; (2) his causation opinions are conclusory and unreliable; and (3) he started with a conclusion and sought only confirming evidence.
State Farm challenged Hall’s conclusion that hail can cause shingle damage at 0.75 inches, arguing that the hail must be at least 1.5 inches to do so. It criticized his choice not to measure individual hail impacts. State Farm questioned his decision not to inspect every portion of the roof. It disputed his assessment of a single window-screen tear. And it digressed considerably about “redacted” weather data without establishing the data’s significance or countering Hall’s testimony that he accounted for the data elsewhere in his report.
As for the first argument—that Hall conducted an insufficient investigation and used “homemade” methods—the Court held that State Farm never shows how Hall’s investigation meaningfully deviates from accepted practices used by similar experts in this field.
Next, the Court held that it is not clear whether State Farm’s second and third contentions—that Hall’s opinions are conclusory and that he started with a predetermined conclusion—even challenged Hall’s methodology. Forming an initial hypothesis—which Hall acknowledged doing—does not render an expert’s methodology unreliable if he then gathers and analyzes data to test that hypothesis, which Hall did. Similarly, State Farm’s characterization of Hall’s opinions as “conclusory,” is more of an assertion that Hall didn’t use a methodology, not that the methodology he used is unreliable.
Finally, the State Farm’s claim that Hall “disregarded any unfavorable data that did not support his assumption that hail was the cause of loss” was unsupported by the record.
Held
The Court denied the State Farm’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Neil Hall.
Key Takeaway:
The Court’s task in evaluating expert testimony is not to determine whether the expert’s conclusions are correct or to nitpick every data point or input used. Rather, the Court must ensure that the methodology used to reach those conclusions is reliable.
Basically, the Court found that Hall employed a reliable approach consistent with practices in the field of forensic engineering by inspecting the property, analyzing weather data from multiple sources, documenting damage, and applying his professional experience to reach his conclusions.
Moreover, the Court added that State Farm’s criticisms of Hall’s specific factual inputs and conclusions did not show any fundamental flaws in his methodology.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Shockman v. State Farm Lloyds |
| Docket Number: | 4:22 cv 02030 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division |
| Order Date: | March 31, 2025 |
