Slaughter v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 92

RULING denying 87 Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Designated Expert Tommy Tompkins. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 2/11/2021. (EDC)

Case 3:17-cv-01652-SDD-EWD

Document 92

02/11/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JONATHAN SLAUGHTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

17-1652-SDD-EWD

IMPERIAL FIRE & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY

RULING ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S
RETAINED EXPERT TOMMY TOMPKINS
Before the Court is the Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert Tommy
Tompkins1 (“Motion”) filed by defendant Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
(“Imperial”).2 The Motion is opposed by Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases (“Plaintiffs”).3
Imperial 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
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”).

1

Rec. Doc. 87.
The subject Motion and this Court’s instant Ruling applies to the matters consolidated for discovery
purposes with the captioned matter.
3
Rec. Doc. 88.
4
Rec. Doc. 91.
5
Rec. Doc. 18.
2

Document Number: 65466

1

Case 3:17-cv-01652-SDD-EWD

Document 92

02/11/21 Page 2 of 2

Imperial moves to exclude opinion testimony from the Plaintiff’s loss expert Tommy
Tompkins (“Tompkins”). Imperial’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, Imperial’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Retained
Expert and Request for Hearing10 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 11th 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. 87.
7

Document Number: 65466

2