Valuation Expert Allowed to Opine on Economic Damages
Posted on January 9, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler
In this insurance bad faith case, Plaintiff James Won alleged that State Farm unreasonably denied his claim for business property damage and lost profits resulting from a fire that occurred at Won’s Tapioca Express store in Edmonds, Washington on September 11, 2021.
Won disclosed Michael Jack of Soundpoint as a financial expert but the Defendant sought to exclude Jack’s testimony, alleging that the opinions of Jack that the Plaintiff disclosed before the discovery cutoff on October 5, 2025 “are irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury in this case.”
Valuation Expert Witness
Michael Jack is a Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA). He has an Honors BS in Finance from Indiana University, an MBA from the University of North Carolina and is a graduate of General Electric’s Financial Management Program.
He has held leadership roles in finance, operations, technology, program management and product management in start-ups, mid-size fintechs and large financial services firms.
Discussion by the Court
Initially, Defendant contested only the helpfulness of the opinions of Jack that were disclosed before the discovery cutoff on October 5, 2025.
On August 06, 2025, Plaintiff disclosed Jack as a financial expert and shared a report from Jack dated July 29, 2025. That report expressed Jack’s opinion concerning the fair market value of Plaintiff’s business as of the date of the fire that precipitated the insurance claim that is at issue in this action. Jack’s report presented the fair market valuation—$501,000—as being offered “for the purposes of a calculation of economic damages.” However, the report did not directly calculate economic damages.
However, on October 08, three days after the discovery cutoff, Plaintiff produced a second report from Jack. Conceding that the first report “is not a direct calculation of economic damages,” the second report offered a net economic damages calculation of $434,700. A third report from Jack, dated October 20, 2025, offered a calculation of “the total annual lost income to Won incurred from the closure of Northwest Tea Station . . . due to a fire in September 2021.”
Defendant added that these post-discovery-cutoff opinions should be stricken and are essentially an effort by the Plaintiff to “change the heart of his case without giving State Farm an opportunity to fairly respond.”
Analysis
Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court allowed the reports from Jack that were disclosed after the discovery cutoff. Having allowed those reports from Jack, the Court has no doubt that Jack’s analyses, taken together, are helpful. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant’s Daubert motion and Defendant’s motion to strike. However, the Court did not accept Plaintiff’s argument that his post-discovery-cutoff disclosures were timely supplements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) given that Plaintiff has been aware since at least March 2025 that Defendant had requested a specific, itemized list of Plaintiff’s damages.
Nor did the Court accept Plaintiff’s argument that his post-discovery-cutoff disclosures were “substantially justified” and “harmless” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Therefore, the Court is willing to consider a motion by Defendant for reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by Plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose a damages calculation.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Michael Jack and strike his untimely expert report.
Key Takeaway
While Jack’s analyses are helpful, Plaintiff’s initial disclosures did not provide a “computation of each category of damages” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), nor did Plaintiff provide the “itemized list of damages” requested by Defendant in Defendant’s discovery requests.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Won V. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv507 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Order Date: | January 07, 2026 |
