--- title: "Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage" meta: "og:description": "The roofing expert was allowed to testify because he did not dismiss alternative causes as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration" "og:title": "Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage " author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The roofing expert was allowed to testify because he did not dismiss alternative causes as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration" --- # Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage Posted on August 4, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta West Louisville Preservation Hall ("WLPH") is a Kentucky Limited Liability Company located in Owensboro, Kentucky, founded by Jennifer Higdon and Deborah Coomes. In 2012, WLPH purchased a commercial building located at 9661 State Route 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 (the "building" or "insured property"), which is the subject of this litigation. From July 31 to August 1, 2022, a storm with winds up to 70 miles per hour and hail 1 inch in size struck the insured property, resulting in damage to the roof. WLPH subsequently filed a claim with Secura, causing Secura to initiate an investigation. Secura issued its coverage determination to WLPH, accepting in part and denying in part WLPH's claim. Secura subsequently sent a letter to WLPH indicating that it would pay $41,456.95 for damage resulting from the windstorm. WLPH disagreed with the amount paid by Secura and therefore invoked the Policy's appraisal provision. On July 18, 2025, the parties received an appraisal award in relation to the barrel-vaulted section of the building's roof, thus concluding the appraisal process. Pursuant to the appraisal award, Secura issued payment in the amount of $227,199.97 to WLPH on August 22, 2025. Neither party disputes that the appraisal award appropriately compensated WLPH for the damage to the barrel-vaulted section of the roof. However, WLPH maintains that "the Award did not include the entire Loss—only the barrel-vaulted roof." WLPH maintained that it is owed compensation for damage to: (1) the low-sloped EPDM roofing system; (2) the metal panel system; (3) the gutters, downspouts, and metal flashing; (4) the HVAC units; and (5) the interiors of the building. On July 29, 2024, while the appraisal process was ongoing, WLPH filed this action for breach of contract and bad faith. ![Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_04T150950_5901.webp) ### Motions to Exclude In pursuing this action, WLPH retained several experts. Relevant here, WLPH disclosed as an expert Jeremy Britton, the owner of Exceptional Roofing, who was hired by WLPH to "provide temporary repairs and mitigation work related to the Loss." WLPH anticipates that Britton will testify "as to the damage observed on the roof and interior of the Insured Premises" and "regarding the specific temporary repairs/mitigation efforts that have been undertaken by Exceptional [Roofing] and the cost related to the same." WLPH also disclosed Steve Prosser, a "Registered Roof Consultant" who inspected the insured premises as part of the appraisal process and produced a "Storm Damage Inspection Report" dated August 2, 2023. Upon being retained by WLPH as an expert witness, Prosser prepared a "Supplemental Storm Damage Inspection Report" dated April 22, 2025. WLPH anticipated that Prosser will testify regarding the conclusions in both reports, including that the July 31-August 1, 2022 windstorm damaged the premises. Third, WLPH disclosed Scott Heidelberg, a licensed independent adjuster who provided estimates of the cost to repair damage to the insured premises from the storm using the Prosser's reports. Defendant Secura Insurance Company sought to strike and/or limit the testimony of WLPH's expert [Jeremy Britton](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jeremy-Britton/1578064) and to strike and/or exclude WLPH's experts [Steven M. Prosser](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Steven-Prosser/1544753) and [Scott Heidelberg](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Scott-Heidelberg/1578063). ## Roofing Expert Witnesses [Jeremy Britton](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jeremy-Britton/1578064) is the owner of Exceptional Roofing LLC, a commercial roofing contractor that performed repairs on the insured property after the July 31-August 1, 2022 storm. [Want to know more about the challenges Jeremy Britton has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578064&pId=3). [Steve Michael Prosser](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Steven-Prosser/1544753) is a licensed engineer and registered roof consultant through a nationwide certification process from the International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants ("IIBEC"). In 2000, Prosser founded Prosser & Associates Engineering, which conducts forensic investigations of residential and commercial structures that have been damaged as a result of weather events. These investigations involve "the review of weather reports and the comparison of those reports to the conditions in the field." In his more than 25 years leading Prosser & Associates, Prosser has conducted thousands of forensic investigations. [Gain a comprehensive understanding of Steve Prosser’s qualifications and casework history with his Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1544753&pId=3). ## Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness [Scott Heidelberg](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Scott-Heidelberg/1578063) has been a licensed independent adjuster since 2008 and has adjusted thousands of claims during that time. He has also served as an appraiser, umpire, and contractor. [Get the full story on challenges to Scott Heidelberg’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578063&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### A. Motion to Strike and/or Limit the Testimony of Jeremy Britton Secura sought to strike WLPH's expert Britton or limit his testimony to that of a lay witness. Secura conceded that Britton should be permitted to provide opinion testimony about the cost of repairs rationally based on his perception as WLPH's roofing contractor but argued that he should not be permitted to provide testimony "based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge (i.e. the cause and origin of the damage to the roof)." The parties agreed that Britton may offer testimony only as to his personal knowledge of the state of the roof, the cost of repairs, and mitigation efforts taken by his company. They likewise agreed that Britton may not offer testimony as to the cause or origin of the damage. Practically speaking, no dispute exists as to Britton's testimony. Yet WLPH sought to have his testimony labeled as "expert" testimony. The substance of Britton's proffered testimony, however, is more properly labeled as lay witness testimony. Britton is offered to provide testimony as to his own perception of the damage to the roof, the repairs his company made, and the cost estimate of further repairs. While Britton may have particularized knowledge of the cost of such damage given his experience as a roofing contractor, this does not render his opinion an expert opinion. Accordingly, the Court granted Secura's motion to the extent it sought to limit Britton's testimony to that of a lay witness. Britton may testify as to his personal observations as WLPH's roofing contractor, including his observation of damages, the cost of repairs, and which repairs were made. Britton may not provide opine as to the cause or origin of the damage. ### B. Motion to Strike and/or exclude Steve Prosser Secura argued that Prosser must be excluded as an expert witness because his opinions are speculative and unreliable. Secura maintained that Prosser's conclusion that the July-August 2022 storm caused the damage to the building is speculative because he came to this conclusion upon performing one inspection of the premises nearly a year after the storm occurred while failing to consider other possible causes. Secura highlighted Prosser's admissions that he obtained no information from WLPH regarding preexisting roof damage and that he could not rule out that the roof damage occurred at some time other than the July-August 2022 storm. Secura also emphasizes Prosser's admission that his opinion is "subjective" and maintains that the crux of his opinion is that the July-August 2022 storm "may have been the cause of the observed damage, along with any number of other potential causes within 8-10 years of Prosser's inspection." Secura maintained that "Prosser is not permitted to subjectively speculate to the jury that the observed damage could have been caused by the July 31, 2022-August 1, 2022 storm event" while failing to account for other possible causes. Finally, Secura maintained that Prosser admitted that he did not consider other storm events that could have caused the damage, so his opinion as to the date of the damage is unreliable. First, Prosser's admission that he "could not rule out" other causes of the roof damage does not make his testimony inadmissible. The Court found that Prosser explained his scientific method, his observations about the state of the roof, and how he concluded from those facts that the July-August 2022 storm likely caused the damage. Secura did not dispute that this methodology is sound; it simply disputes the validity of the conclusion that Prosser arrived at based on that methodology. The fact that Prosser failed to eliminate other weather events as possible causes goes to the accuracy of his conclusion and the weight of his testimony, not to the soundness of his methodology or the admissibility of his opinion. Secura's challenge that Prosser's opinion is "speculative" or the product of "extrapolation" likewise fails. Prosser's reports and deposition testimony clearly set forth the facts and methodology upon which he based his conclusions. The Supplemental Report indicates that Prosser reviewed meteorological data indicating that a severe wind and hailstorm occurred on July 31-August 1, 2022. The report then details the various signs of weather damage based on HAAG standards. In deposition testimony, Prosser testified as to how the specific characteristics of the damage indicated that the damage was likely the result of the July-August 2022 storm. Prosser's conclusion is based on applying scientific methodology to facts in the record and therefore should not be dismissed as a mere "assumption" or "guess." Prosser did not dismiss alternative causes as irrelevant or unworthy of consideration. Instead, he gave reasoned explanations as to why, in his opinion, those alternatives were not viable causes. While Prosser's opinion may be "shaky," this bears on the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. Accordingly, the Court found that Prosser's opinion is based on sufficient facts or data and that his testimony is the product of reliable methods. ### C. Motion to Strike and/or exclude Scott Heidelberg Secura argued that Heidelberg's opinions are derivative of Prosser's and therefore must he be excluded to the same extent as Prosser. Accordingly, Secura's sole argument that Heidelberg must be excluded is contingent on Prosser's exclusion. Because the Court found Prosser's testimony admissible, this argument failed. The Court therefore denied Secura's motion with respect to Heidelberg. ## **Held** - The Court granted in part Secura's motion to strike and/or limit the testimony of Plaintiff expert Jeremy Britton. - The Court denied Secura's motion to strike and/or exclude Steve Prosser and Scott Heidelberg. ## **Key Takeaway** An opinion on causation need not eliminate all other possible causes of the injury and the fact that other causes are not eliminated or a precise cause is not stated go to the accuracy of the conclusion, not the soundness of the methodology. [_Daubert_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard) and [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.) require only that the expert testimony be derived from inferences based on a scientific method and that those inferences be derived from the facts of the case at hand, not that they know answers to all the questions a case presents. ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | West Louisville Preservation Hall, LLC V. Secura Insurance Companies | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 4:24cv80 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Kentucky Western | | Order Date: | July 31, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_04T150950_5901.webp) [**Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-)![Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_03T200114_366.webp) [**Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-/dermatology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-dmdm-induced-dermatitis)![Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X4802.webp) [**Hospitality Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Food Safety Regulations**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-/hospitality-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-food-safety-regulations)![Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T200905_3121.webp) [**Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications)![Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T175244_408.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner)