Forensic Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite His Reliance on Virtual Evidence
Posted on February 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
SFR Services, LLC (“SFR”) sued American Coastal Insurance Company (“ACIC”) for breach of an insurance policy (the “Policy”) based on ACIC’s failure to provide coverage and remit payment for damage sustained by Steamboat Bend Condominium Association, Inc. (“Steamboat Bend”) during Hurricane Irma. SFR is the assignee of Steamboat Bend’s rights under the Policy.
Plaintiff’s expert Grant Renne conducted a virtual inspection assisted by Durant Saint-Hilaire, a certified roofing inspector who was on-site during the inspection. Renne’s methodology complied with standard practices and used data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS). Renne’s report stated that his methodology was “based on ASTM E2713-18 (Standard Guide to Forensic Engineering), ASTM E1188-11 (Standard Practice for the Collection and Preservation of Information and Physical Items by a Technical Investigator), and E620-18 (Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts).” Renne prepared his report through “visual inspection of readily observable surfaces, collection of digital evidence, and rotation of roof tiles to determine attachment integrity.”
Renne testified that he excluded from his analysis areas of prior repairs and areas of prior destructive testing. Renne’s report ultimately concluded that Hurricane Irma caused the damage.
ACIC argued that the report should be excluded because Renne’s inspection was done virtually and that Saint-Hilaire, the certified roofing inspector who was on-site during the inspection, did not possess the necessary qualifications. ACIC also argued that Renne’s report was based on insufficient facts and data because he did not interview unit owners and residents or review repair records related to the property, in contravention of the ASCE, ASTM, and his own report. ACIC’s final argument in favor of exclusion is that, because destructive testing was already done prior to Renne’s inspection, Renne’s conclusions were unreliable.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness
Grant Renne has been a Registered Professional Engineer since 1990, completed over 6,000 property damage investigations throughout his career, and participated in over 400 cases.
Discussion by the Court
Renne’s conclusion that Hurricane Irma caused the damage is based on his review of the buildings, velocity pressure calculations based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 formula, and historic NOAA weather data.
Renne’s Reliance on Virtual Evidence Does not Inherently Bar his Testimony
At the onset, the Court rejected ACIC’s arguments regarding the virtual nature of the inspection and the destructive testing. An expert’s reliance on virtual evidence does not inherently bar his testimony.
Also, Saint-Hilaire possessed the technical qualifications required to participate in the on-site investigation. Renne testified that he never performed destructive testing, as the ASTM does not allow for destructive testing because the investigation cannot be repeated, tested, or verified. The fact that destructive testing was performed prior to Renne’s investigation did not render his investigation unreliable.
Renne’s Failure to Interview Involved Parties did not make his Report Unreliable
The Court rejected ACIC’s argument that Renne’s failure to interview these involved parties made his report unreliable. ASCE 30-14 stated that it only needs to be done “whenever possible,” not in all circumstances. However, the Court recognizes that Renne’s report is somewhat confusing, as he stated “[t]he following list of standard practices [were] performed” and then lists that “an interview with the property owner may be conducted either on site or via telephone.” Thus, the Court held that any discrepancies between Renne’s report and testimony should be addressed on cross-examination at trial. It goes to his credibility, not the admissibility of his testimony.
Although Renne’s Review of the Repairs was Less than Thorough, that Alone does not Garner Exclusion of his Report
At the crux of ACIC’s issue with Renne’s report is his failure to review repair records from repairs made by Steamboat Bend, despite his review of repair documents related to repairs made by SFR.
ACIC also argued that Renne should not have excluded the areas of repair and deemed it contaminated evidence “unworthy of consideration in the formulation of his opinion.”
Renne testified that he relied on ASCE 30-14. ASCE 30-14 requires inspectors to “obtain and analyze any written documentation for alterations and repairs.” Renne’s report details that “areas of pre-loss repairs and/or post-loss mitigation [were] reviewed.”
Indeed, Renne testified that he reviewed SFR’s repair records and visually reviewed repairs during his investigation. The Court concluded that, although Renne’s review of the repairs was less than thorough, that alone does not garner exclusion of his report as there was “adequate evidence that had not been repaired for him to formulate his opinion.”
Held
The Court denied the Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Grant Renne without prejudice. ACIC may renew the motion as a motion in limine closer to trial.
Key Takeaway:
Renne’s report is not the model for clarity, yet “experts and their opinions need not be perfect to be admissible.” Renne’s application of his methodology is not so unreliable that the Court should exclude it out of hand. ACIC’s issues with Renne’s report can be used during cross-examination to potentially decrease the weight and credibility the jury gives to his opinion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | SFR Services, Llc V. American Coastal Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv505 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | February 7, 2025 |
