Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on the Need For a Total Roof Replacement

State Farm issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Peggy Moore for her home located in Claremore, Oklahoma, and the policy was in effect from January 17, 2024, to January 17, 2025.

On May 25, 2024, an EF-3 tornado—producing winds between 136 and 165 mph—and .75-inch hail struck the residence of Plaintiff at 690 East 12th Street, Claremore, Oklahoma. Moore asserted claims of breach of insurance contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith) against State Farm for allegedly undervaluing the loss.

State Farm asked the Court to exclude the testimony of Stephanie Lee, an expert retained by Plaintiff to offer testimony on the cause of damage to Plaintiff's roof, the need for a total roof replacement, and the availability of coverage under the policy.

Insurance Expert Witness

Stephanie Lee is a highly qualified insurance claims professional with eighteen (18) years of hands-on experience inspecting, adjusting, appraising, and estimating residential and commercial property insurance claims. She holds numerous industry certifications—including AIC, SPPA, CPAU, CPLAU, HAAG Residential and Commercial Inspector, Xactimate 28 and Xactimate Pricing certifications, OSHA 10, and multiple roofing manufacturer certifications. She has conducted at least 1,000 wind and hail inspections, has sold hundreds of roofs, and has issued roof warranties.

Get the full story on challenges to Stephanie Lee’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Discussion by the Court

State Farm contended that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show that Lee applied a reliable methodology to reach her opinions, and Lee's opinions concerning causation of damage to the roof and repairability are mere speculation.

Plaintiff retained Lee to perform a claim and damage assessment of her roof, and Lee inspected the roof on April 6, 2026. Before the inspection, Lee examined weather data and confirmed that an EF-3 tornado produced substantial winds at the home's location on the date of the loss. In addition to an inspection of the roof, Lee brought a roofing contractor to attempt a repair of a small section of the roof to determine if repair was a feasible option.

Lee wrote a report providing four opinions in support of Plaintiff's claims:

• Opinion #1: A storm that produced an EF-3 tornado and small hail occurred at Moore's residence on May 25, 2024. This storm caused damage to Moore's roof, gutters, fence, and greenhouse.

• Opinion #2: Moore's roof cannot be repaired to pre-loss condition through localized repairs suggested by State Farm.

• Opinion #3: State Farm owes the full replacement of the roof system, along with all other storm-damaged items, to properly indemnify Moore according to the coverages purchased and contained in State Farm's insurance policy.

• Opinion #4: The replacement cost of this covered loss is $21,918.06. Lee's opinion as to repair of the roof was based on the roofing contractor's assessment that new shingles could not be installed without damaging adjacent shingles, and the attempted repair resulted in additional damage to the roof. In addition, the shingle used on Plaintiff's roof had been discontinued, and full replacement of the roof was the only option to ensure uniformity of the roofing shingles. Lee stated that she used a software program called Xactimate to estimate the amount of Plaintiff's loss, which is the industry standard used by insurance companies for this task.

The Court generally agreed with Plaintiff that State Farm's challenges to Lee's testimony go to the weight of her testimony, rather than its reliability, but the Court will place certain limitations on the scope of Lee's expert testimony. State Farm contended that Lee lacked a reliable basis to conclude that the May 25, 2024 storm caused all of the observable damage to Plaintiff's property, and Lee failed to adequately rule out other causes of damage before reaching this conclusion. However, Lee confirmed that a severe weather event occurred at Plaintiff's location, and State Farm's own investigation confirmed that the storm substantially damaged Plaintiff's property. The Court also took into account the nature of the opinion being offered, which is based more on expertise than scientific analysis, and found that Lee has a reasonable basis to testify that the May 25, 2024 storm caused sufficient damage to support Plaintiff's demand for total roof replacement.

Lee may testify about her inspection, her opinions concerning the condition of the roof, the cause of any damage, and the cost of replacing the roof. However, the Court found that some limitations are appropriate based on Lee's expert report and deposition testimony. Lee may testify that the repair method attempted by the roofing contractor during her inspection was unsuccessful, but she may not testify that any other type of repair method would also be unsuccessful. There is nothing in her report or deposition testimony suggesting that she considered or attempted any other type of repair, and she may not offer an opinion that all possible repair methods would be unsuccessful. Second, the Court agreed with State Farm that Lee may not offer an opinion that State Farm breached the insurance contract by failing to pay for a new roof for Plaintiff's home. This would constitute a finding on the ultimate issue in the case and, although such opinions are not absolutely prohibited, this finding should be reserved for the jury to make on its own.

Lee may testify that total roof replacement is the only viable option under the circumstances, but she may not suggest that State Farm "owes" Plaintiff a new roof or make the legal conclusion that total roof replacement is required under the insurance policy.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Stephanie Lee. State Farm's request to wholly exclude Lee's testimony is denied, but she is prohibited from offering opinions on the ultimate issue of insurance coverage and that there is no possible means to repair Plaintiff's roof.

Key Takeaway

An expert in the relevant field of general contracting and roof repair would not necessarily apply a scientifically testable theory or technique, and the analysis has more to do with the experience of the contractor rather than the contractor's ability to apply a scientific methodology that leads to testable results. State Farm complains that Lee makes "assumptions" about the cause of roof damage and that Lee failed to apply a reliable methodology when overseeing an attempted repair of the roof. The Court does not find that these complaints merit the wholesale exclusion of Lee's testimony, because State Farm has not shown that an expert in the relevant field would apply a more rigorous methodology.

Case Details: