CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON v. REACHING SOULS CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE et al
Filing
35
ORDER DENYING 27 Motion to Strike. The Court will allow the Plaintiffs additional time to disclose rebuttal experts. Disclosure must be made within 30 days of the filing of this Order. Additionally, the discovery period in this case is extende d through September 5, 2014 for the purpose of deposing the Plaintiffs' rebuttal experts. The deadline for filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions is extended through October 6, 2014. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/27/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD’S LONDON, subscribing to
Policy No. 940GAPKGPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
REACHING SOULS CATHEDRAL OF
PRAISE, BERT WITHAM, and THE
ROSS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-325 (MTT)
ORDER
This lawsuit involves a dispute about the Plaintiffs’ obligations under an
insurance policy following a January 2013 fire at the Reaching Souls Cathedral of
Praise chapel in Macon. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the insurance
policy at issue is void ab initio as to Defendant Bert Witham1 or that the policy does not
provide coverage for property lost in the fire. (Doc. 8). Witham has filed a counterclaim
asserting the Plaintiffs have an indemnity obligation to him because he held a mortgage
interest in the property that burned. (Doc. 10). In support of his counterclaim, Witham
disclosed experts who will offer opinions as to the value of the real and personal
property damages he allegedly sustained. (Doc. 27-1 to Doc. 27-15).
1
The Court has already entered a default judgment against Defendants Reaching Souls
Cathedral and The Ross Family Partnership. (Doc. 15).
The Plaintiffs have moved to strike these experts. (Doc. 27). The Plaintiffs argue
the experts’ opinions are irrelevant because, as to the buildings and structures, they
considered the “replacement cost value” rather than “actual cash value.” The policy
provides only for actual cash value, according to the Plaintiffs. Similarly, the Plaintiffs
contend opinion as to the loss of personal property inside the buildings is irrelevant
because the policy limits Witham’s potential coverage to real property. Witham disputes
these interpretations of the policy, which he alleges provides coverage for replacement
cost value and for personal property.
Nevertheless, in response to the motion to strike, Witham’s experts
supplemented their disclosures to offer opinion regarding “actual cash value” of the real
property and to address deficiencies the Plaintiff raised as to their methodology. (Doc.
31-1; Doc. 31-2). According to Witham, the Plaintiffs had not deposed the experts at
the time they filed their supplemental reports. (Doc. 31). Moreover, to whatever extent
the supplemental reports may have been untimely, there is no evidence or argument the
Plaintiffs have actually been prejudiced. Finally, the Court will not resolve at this time
issues related to the relevance of yet-to-be deposed experts when those issues require
the Court to reconcile disputed interpretations of the insurance policy. Those questions
would be more suitably addressed in Daubert or dispositive motions. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED.
However, the Court will allow the Plaintiffs additional time to disclose rebuttal
experts. Disclosure must be made within 30 days of the filing of this Order.
Additionally, the discovery period in this case is extended through September 5, 2014
-2
for the purpose of deposing the Plaintiffs’ rebuttal experts. The deadline for filing
dispositive motions and Daubert motions is extended through October 6, 2014.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of June, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?