Liemann et al v. Encompass Property & Casualty Company
Filing
29
ORDER & REASONS that the Defendant's 19 Motion to Expedite it's 21 Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Steve Owens is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Steve Owens 21 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 2/14/13. (dno, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FRED LIEMANN, ET AL.
versus
ENCOMPASS PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO.
*
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-1047
SECTION “L” (2)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Steve Owens
filed on behalf of Defendant. (R. Doc. 21). The Defendant has also moved for an expedited
hearing on its Motion. (R. Doc. 19). The Court has reviewed the submitted memoranda and
applicable law and now issues this Order and Reasons.
This case arises out of an insurance claim made by Plaintiffs Fred Liemann and
Becky Liemann for damage to their home allegedly the result of Tropical Storm Lee on
September 5, 2011. Plaintiffs allege that they notified Defendant about the loss and received a
claim number. Plaintiffs hired a private roofing contractor to assess the damage on October 13,
2011, which estimate was approximately $8,864.77. Plaintiffs further allege that Encompass
sent the first of two denial letters on October 20, 2011, citing exclusions for continuous or
repeated seepage and an investigation revealing that the damage was caused by lack of repair to
damages that were the subject of previously paid claims. On January 12, 2012, Plaintiffs
submitted to Defendant a formal demand letter and attached a letter from Glen Wondergem, the
contractor who had repaired the subject property after Hurricanes Katrina, Ike, and Gustav,
stating that the previous damages had in fact been repaired. Plaintiffs received the second denial
1
letter, which cited a lack of supporting documentation, on January 24, 2012. Plaintiffs allege
that the property remains unrepaired and that the home’s damage now includes damage
associated with mold infiltration. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is liable for damages and
statutory penalties because of its arbitrary and capricious failure to pay pursuant to La. R.S. §§
22:1892 and 22:1973. Plaintiff filed a petition and citation in the 22nd Judicial District Court for
the Parish of Saint Tammany. Defendant timely filed a Notice of Removal.
Defendant has filed an answer denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses,
including policy exclusions, prescription, and failure to mitigate.
Turning to the instant Motion, the gravamen of Defendant’s argument for exclusion
of the Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony is a disagreement with the expert’s conclusions, rather than a
question as to his methods. The challenged expert is amply qualified. The Court therefore finds
that the appropriate forum for Defendant’s challenge is cross examination, rather than a Daubert
motion.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for an Expedited
Hearing (R. Doc. 19) on the above Motion be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Steve Owens filed on
behalf of Defendant (R. Doc. 21) be and is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of February, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?