Structural Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Roof Failure Admitted
Posted on November 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiffs Laura Kotelman and Paul Kotelman (the Kotelmans) filed a Complaint against Defendant Farm Bureau Financial Services (Farm Bureau) following a dispute over insurance coverage for residential property roof damage.
Farm Bureau moved to exclude the expert testimony of the Kotelmans’ structural engineering expert, Keith Stroh and to strike the rebuttal report of Stroh.
Structural Engineering Expert Witness
Keith M. Stroh holds three degrees from South Dakota State University: two bachelor’s degrees in agricultural and civil engineering, and a master’s degree in structural engineering. He has worked as an engineer since 1986, a structural engineer since 1996, and an engineering consultant, including doing forensic engineer work, since 2003. Stroh has completed at least twenty-one forensic engineering analyses to date.
Discussion by the Court
A. Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Farm Bureau argued that the Kotelmans have failed to demonstrate that Stroh has the qualifications to render the proposed testimony or that the proposed testimony of Stroh met the requirements of Rule 702.
The Kotelmans argued that (1) it is premature for this Court to decide whether to exclude this expert, (2) Stroh has the appropriate qualifications to render his opinion whether the roof met applicable construction standard and what caused damage to the roof, and (3) Stroh’s analysis followed engineering industry standards.
Discovery, as mentioned earlier, is still ongoing in this case. As of now, it appears “more likely than not” that Stroh’s testimony could aid a fact finder in understanding issues within the expertise of a structural engineer with forensic engineering experience relating to design, construction and causes of the failure of the Kotelmans’ roof. Once discovery is done, this Court anticipates Farm Bureau will renew its motion for summary judgment and perhaps challenge Stroh’s expertise then or later in a motion in limine. At this time, the Court denied Farm Bureau’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Stroh.
B. Motion to Strike Rebuttal Report
Farm Bureau also requested that this Court strike Stroh’s rebuttal report. Stroh’s expert report and opinions were disclosed on March 31, 2025. Farm Bureau’s experts and expert reports were disclosed on June 30. On August 26, Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment. On August 28, the Kotelmans disclosed Stroh’s rebuttal report, which was fifty-nine days after Farm Bureau disclosed its expert reports.
Farm Bureau argued that the rebuttal report should be struck because (1) the scheduling order does not expressly permit rebuttal reports; (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that rebuttal reports be disclosed thirty days after the opposing parties’ expert reports; and (3) Farm Bureau is prejudiced by the Kotelmans’ ambushing of Farm Bureau “with this untimely disclosure.”
Considering the particular circumstances of this case, the Court found that this is not one of the rare cases where the “harsh penalty” of excluding the report is appropriate.
First, Stroh’s rebuttal testimony is important for the Kotelmans to respond to Farm Bureau’s experts. Second, the Kotelmans have explained their reasoning for not disclosing the rebuttal report earlier. In addition, at the time the rebuttal expert report was filed, the most recent scheduling order had extended the discovery deadline, “including expert discovery,” to October 15, 2025, without specifying a rebuttal expert report deadline. Third, allowing the Kotelmans to use Stroh’s rebuttal report would not unfairly prejudice Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau has its own engineering expert who can address and refute Stroh’s rebuttal report. Fourth, the discovery deadline in the case effectively has been extended until at least January 2, 2026.
Held
- The Court denied Farm Bureau’s motion to exclude the testimony of Keith Stroh.
- The Court denied Farm Bureau’s motion to strike the rebuttal report of Keith Stroh.
Key Takeaway:
The exclusion of evidence is a harsh penalty and should be used sparingly. When a party does not fully comply with the expert-disclosure rules, the district court has wide discretion to fashion a remedy or sanction as appropriate for the particular circumstances of the case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kotelman V. Farm Bureau Financial Services |
| Docket Number: | 4:24cv4066 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, South Dakota |
| Order Date: | November 05, 2025 |
