Civil Engineering Expert Employed a Reliable Methodology for Segregating Damages

In this insurance coverage dispute, Plaintiff Will Properties Inc. brought claims against Defendant Century Surety Company for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

Plaintiff alleged that its exhibition center in Harker Heights, Texas was covered by Defendant’s policy, which included hail and windstorm coverage, from November 1, 2020 to November 1, 2021, and that the property “sustained extensive damage resulting from a severe storm that passed through the Bell County, Texas area” during the policy period.

Defendant contended that Plaintiff cannot show that its claimed damages resulted from a covered cause of loss because it cannot segregate between damages that occurred during and before the policy period, including in a 2013 storm.

Moreover, Defendant asked the Court to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Neil B. Hall.

Civil Engineering Expert Witness

Neil Bradley Hall is a graduate of City College of New York and a licensed Professional Engineer in Texas, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, USVI and Mississippi, with over 25 years of professional experience in the practice of engineering. 

Hall is the owner and principal of Groundtruth Forensics, a consulting firm specializing in building performance, failure analysis and damage assessment.

Want to know more about the challenges Neil B. Hall has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

Defendant contended: “According to the facts that Hall acknowledges, the Property suffered damage from a combination of covered and non-covered causes of loss. Yet nowhere in his written reports or deposition testimony does Hall even attempt to segregate the damage between those two.”

Therefore, Defendant asserted, “Hall’s opinions do nothing to aid the fact finder and offer no information relevant to a determination of whether or to what extent Will Properties’ roof might have been damaged by a covered cause of loss.”

In response, Plaintiff emphasized that Defendant did not challenge Hall’s education, qualifications, or methodology. Instead, Plaintiff contended, Defendant misstated the testimony of Hall, who “explained how he segregated damages between the Policy period and those pre-existing the Policy period.” Plaintiff submitted the transcript of Hall’s deposition and his declaration responding to the motion to exclude. In both, Hall explained his efforts to segregate hail damage to Plaintiff’s property by age, including by reviewing storms five years before the reported date of loss and focusing on two hail storms in 2019 and 2020; he also testified that he reviewed information from the 2013 storm.

The Court, therefore, found that Hall’s opinions are relevant and sufficiently reliable to be considered by the finder of fact, who will be free to consider Hall’s methodology for segregating damages when determining the proper weight to accord his opinions.

Held

The Court denied the Defendant Century Surety Company’s motion to strike and exclude the opinions of Neil B. Hall.

Key Takeaway:

As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility. Therefore, Defendants’ arguments about the reliability of Hall’s opinions go to the weight properly afforded his testimony, not its admissibility. 

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Will Properties Inc. V. Century Surety Company
Docket Number:	1:22cv1072
Court Name:	United States District Court, Texas Western
Order Date:	July 16, 2025