Insurance Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Damage Causation
Posted on January 13, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case involves allegations of underpayment and nonpayment under an insurance policy.
Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company issued Policy No. 01-C-PK-P20064154-0 to 707 FWY Investments, LLC with effective dates of September 12, 2022, to September 12, 2023. Plaintiff leased out this structure to commercial tenants.
The roof collapsed and then several severe rain and windstorms allowed water infiltration to the roof surfacing and sub-surfacing and the interior of the building. Plaintiff subsequently filed a claim under the policy.
Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert, Monty Stone, a public adjuster designated to testify on causation.
Insurance Expert Witness
Monty B. Stone has had many years of experience in the construction and roofing industry starting from July 2005 to January 2020 where he owned and operated his own construction company and installed all types of roofing systems, including the one at issue in this case.
Stone has been a licensed Public Insurance Adjuster since 2018.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff designated Stone to testify as an expert in damages and causation. Defendant filed a motion to strike Stone’s opinions on causation—but not damages—arguing 1) he is not qualified, and 2) his testimony is not based on a reliable methodology.
Defendant’s argument that Stone is unqualified rests on the fact that he is not an engineer—he is a public adjuster—and “working closely” with engineers is an insufficient basis to make one an expert in engineering. Defendant also pointed to the fact that Stone was not certified as a roof consultant or a roof observer at the time of the loss. Plaintiff responded that 1) Stone has been upheld has an expert in the face of nearly identical challenges, and 2) Defendant’s quibble is better suited for cross-examination.
While he is not currently licensed, he has been in the past and has extensive work experience and training with identifying damage causation, reasonable repairs, and reasonable costs. Stone was also formerly a HAAG Certified Roof Inspector—the same company for which Defendant’s causation expert works. Because Stone is not required to be an engineer to testify as to causation, Defendant’s arguments regarding Stone’s experience are better suited for cross-examination, rather than a challenge based on qualification.
Defendant also objected to the reliability of Stone’s testimony, arguing that he provides only “general statements without concrete examples” which amounts to “ipse dixit.”
Plaintiff argued that “Defendant offered no comparison to other methodologies” and that Defendant’s own engineer relied on the same methodology—visual inspection—and performed no testing.
Defendant presented no other reason for the Court to believe Stone’s physical inspection is not a proper methodology. In light of this, the Court found no reason to think Stone’s methodology was unreliable.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike expert Monty Stone.
Key Takeaway
Although Defendant makes an argument based on Stone’s lack of schooling, that is only one among many ways to be qualified. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702, a witness may be qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | 707 FWY Investments LLC V. Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 4:25cv114 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Northern |
| Order Date: | January 09, 2026 |
