---
title: "Structural Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony on the Age and Cause of the Damage to the Roof Admitted"
meta:
  "og:description": "The structural engineering expert witness reliably opined that the identified hail damage was caused by a historical, as opposed to recent, weather event"
  "og:title": "Structural Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony on the Age and Cause of the Damage to the Roof Admitted "
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "The structural engineering expert witness reliably opined that the identified hail damage was caused by a historical, as opposed to recent, weather event"
---

# Structural Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony on the Age and Cause of the Damage to the Roof Admitted 

Posted on February 6, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

This is a removed action by Plaintiff Wings Platinum LLC , an insured, against its insurer, Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, arising from the denial of Wings’ claim for coverage following a wind and hail storm. Wings asserted claims for breach of contract; unfair settlement practices, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Wings alleged that, on April 9, 2021, a severe wind and hail storm caused significant damage to the Property’s roof and exterior. Plaintiff submitted a claim under the Policy for wind and hail damage to the Property that it maintained was caused by the storm, seeking the cost to repair the roof. Westchester retained [Robert J. Herrera](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Herrera/1562514), an engineer at Stephens Engineering, to investigate Wings’ claim. Herrera first inspected the property on September 9, 2021, and he authored three reports. However, Wings filed a motion to strike Herrera’s testimony and opinions.

After Westchester denied Wings’ claim on or about April 21, 2022, Wings sued Westchester in State Court, and Westchester removed the lawsuit to this Court.

## **Structural Engineering Expert Witness**

[Robert Herrera](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Herrera/1562514) was hired by Stephens Engineering Consultants, Inc. in 2020where he uses his years of design engineering experience in the field of forensic investigations. Herrera has performed forensic investigations for a wide variety of residential and commercial structures to determine cause and/or extent of stormrelated damage to roofing and exterior claddings of buildings, water intrusion, structural damage and collapse, differential foundation movement, vehicle impacts, and construction defects.

Herrera is currently a senior forensic engineer, the team leader for Texas, and an integral part of the training of new forensic engineers for Stephens.

[Get the full story on challenges to Robert Herrera’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1562514)

## **Discussion by the Court**

Herrera’s first report, dated September 30, 2021 (the “First Report”), concluded that identified fractures in the thermoplastic membrane of the roof were not caused by wind or hail. The second report, a supplement produced after a follow-up investigation of the building on February 28, 2022 and dated March 22, 2022 (the “Second Report”), identified fractures in the membrane consistent with impact, but it maintained that those fractures were not caused by a weather event in 2021 and were instead caused by a storm in April 2017. The third report, a second supplement dated June 23, 2022 (the “Third Report”), responded to additional materials that Wings had provided and maintained the conclusions reached in the Second Report.

#### **_Plaintiff’s Argument in Support of the Motion_**

Wings sought to exclude Herrera’s testimony on the basis that he is not qualified to opine as an expert on the age of the damage to the roof and that his opinions regarding the age of the hail damage on the roof are not reliable because they lack any reasonable basis and are not the result of sound scientific principles and methods.

Wings posited that Herrera had insufficient training to be qualified as an expert for purposes of determining the time when the roof was damaged by hail.

It contended that Herrera’s prior engineering experience is not relevant to the issue on which he opines—the age of the hail strike damage—and that Herrera’s mere one year and one month of experience at the time of his First Report is insufficient to qualify him as an expert.

Wings also contended that Herrera’s opinions regarding the age of the hail strikes are not reliable because they are entirely subjective and lack “any sort of basis, rubric, metric, or standard” by which to judge them, and because Herrera could not explain how his determination of the age of the damage could be duplicated or tested.

### **Analysis**

#### **Qualification**

Neither Westchester nor Herrera articulates how Herrera’s specific experience designing commercial and residential structures as a project engineer qualifies him to opine on the age of the hail damage. The Court held that Herrera’s training and experience at Stephens, however, qualify him to offer these opinions as an expert.

In his affidavit, Herrera avers that he received on-the-job training when he began working at Stephens in 2020 that was “specific to identifying and assessing wind- and hail-related damage to roofs, including the type of roof at issue in this lawsuit.”

He shadowed senior engineers for 3 to 4 months before beginning to inspect buildings independently, and, at the time he inspected the roof at 3950 Platinum Way, he had inspected approximately 200 buildings for storm damage.

At the time of his affidavit, he had inspected approximately 750 properties for storm damage. The Court finds this experience and training sufficient to qualify Herrera to offer his expert opinion on the age and cause of the damage to the roof at 3950 Platinum Way under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.).

#### **Reliability**

Herrera testified in his deposition that he was able to examine fractures in the roof and determine, “to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty,” that the fractures were more than one year old and thus were not due to a recent hail event. This observation and judgment, in connection with his review of weather research and Roof Technical Services, Inc.’s (“RTS’s”) report from its analysis of the roof samples, formed the basis for Herrera’s opinion.

The Second Report explained that the fractures on the roof attributed to hail damage were consistent with hailfall on or about April 25, 2017 because the damage was consistent with hail larger than that reported at the property in the April 2021 storm. The Court was satisfied with Westchester’s showing of reliability in this instance.

In other words, Wings’ deep_ _reservations about Herrera’s opinions concerned the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility, and will be better addressed through vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence.

## **Held**

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike the testimony and opinions of Defendant’s expert Robert J. Herrera.

## ****Key Takeaway:****

Herrera received on-the-job training when he began working at Stephens in 2020 that was “specific to identifying and assessing wind- and hail-related damage to roofs, including the type of roof at issue in this lawsuit.”

He reviewed weather research and Roof Technical Services, Inc.’s (“RTS’s”) report from its analysis of the roof samples to conclude that the damage to the roof was not caused by a recent hail event.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/structural-engineering-expert-witness-testimony-on-the-age-and-cause-of-the-damage-to-the-roof-admitted/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/structural-engineering-expert-witness-testimony-on-the-age-and-cause-of-the-damage-to-the-roof-admitted/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/structural-engineering-expert-witness-testimony-on-the-age-and-cause-of-the-damage-to-the-roof-admitted/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/structural-engineering-expert-witness-testimony-on-the-age-and-cause-of-the-damage-to-the-roof-admitted/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/structural-engineering-expert-witness-testimony-on-the-age-and-cause-of-the-damage-to-the-roof-admitted/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)