Myers v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 17

RULING denying Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Retained Expert Tommy Tompkins. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/10/2021. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBERTY (“BOBBY”) AND
TINA ANNISON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

17-1629-SDD-EWD

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

RULING ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT TOMMY TOMPKINS
Before the Court is the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Retained
Expert Tommy Tompkins1 (“Motion”) filed by defendant Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company (“Defendant”).2 The Motion is opposed by Plaintiffs in the
consolidated cases (“Plaintiffs”).3 Defendant filed a Reply.4 The Court does not require
oral argument. The Court has carefully considered the law, the facts in the record, and
the arguments and submissions of the Parties, and, for the following reasons, the Motion
is denied.
The captioned matter, and those consolidated herewith for discovery purposes,5
are but a few of the thousands of cases filed as the result of property damages alleged to

1

Rec. Doc. 62.
Rec. Doc. 63. The subject Motion and this Court’s instant Ruling applies to the matters consolidated for
discovery purposes with the captioned matter.
3
Rec. Doc. 66.
4
Rec. Doc. 73.
5
Rec. Doc. 5.
2

Document Number: 65425

1

have resulted from an epic rain event which caused widespread flooding in areas in Baton
Rouge and surrounding areas between August 13 and 15, 2016 (“Flood”).
Defendant moves to exclude opinion testimony from the Plaintiff’s loss expert
Tommy Tompkins (“Tompkins”). Defendant’s Motion is substantively identical to the
Motion in Limine filed by Allstate Insurance Company in cases which present common
questions of fact and law and which arise out of the Flood.6 Another division of this Court
has recently denied an identical Motion in Limine to exclude Tompkins.7 For similar
reasons, this Court reaches the same conclusion.
Therefore, this Court adopts the well-reasoned opinion of Judge deGravelles in
Albert Anderson vs Allstate Insurance Company8 and the undersigned’s recent opinion in
Corley v. Gulfstream Property and Casualty Insurance Company.9 Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth in these opinions, Defendant’s Motion in Limine and Request for
Hearing10 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 10th day of February, 2021.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6

See Civil Action 17cv00597-JWD-SDJ, Rec Doc. 194.
See Civil Action 17cv00597-JWD-SDJ, Rec Doc. 218.
8
Civil Action 17cv00597-JWD-SDJ, Rec. Doc. 218.
9
Civil Action 17cv00535-SDD-RLB, Rec. Doc. 74.
10
Rec. Doc. 79.
7

Document Number: 65425

2