Church Mutual Insurance Company v. The Metropolitan Christian Worship Center of St. Louis

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendants Expert Report and Estimate, Doc 25 , is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiffs Motion seeking to block testimony of Mr. Choate is construed as a motion in limine and is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 10/15/2020. (KCB)

Case: 4:19-cv-00903-MTS Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 1151

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHURCH MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
THE METROPOLITAN CHRISTIAN
WORSHIP CENTER OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00903-MTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Church Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion
to Strike Defendant The Metropolitan Christian Worship Center of St. Louis’s Expert Report,
Estimate, and Testimony of Raymond Choate, Doc. [25]. The Motion is fully briefed and ready
for adjudication. 1
Plaintiff argues that Mr. Choate’s report, estimate, and testimony should be stricken under
Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 702 since the report only addresses the replacement cost
value of the alleged weather-related storm damage and not the actual cash value, which is what the
insurance policy at issue covered. Plaintiff maintains that the only testimony Mr. Choate can offer
would be irrelevant and immaterial, would result in misleading the jury, and that his opinions lack
a reliable foundation.
The Court finds that Mr. Choate’s report and estimate regarding the replacement cost value
of the alleged weather-related damage are relevant. That information would assist the trier of fact
in determining the actual cash value—a fact of consequence—since, under the policy, the
1

Because this Order has been filed contemporaneously with the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Court will not repeat the relevant background but rather refers the reader to Doc. [36].

1

Case: 4:19-cv-00903-MTS Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 1152

replacement cost value must be calculated first. 2 See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Given that the replacement
cost value is a necessary component of the equation to calculate the actual cash value, the Court
does not agree that the report and estimate present any danger that “substantially outweigh[s]”
their probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Lastly, Plaintiff has provided no indication that Mr.
Choate is not qualified as an expert or that his opinions regarding the replacement cost value are
not based on sufficient facts or data. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
While Defendant may not be able to adduce evidence of depreciation through Mr. Choate,
there is evidence in the record regarding depreciation on the roof and gutters in question. In any
event, the Court construes the remainder of the Motion regarding Mr. Choate’s testimony as a
motion in limine and will deny it without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Expert Report
and Estimate, Doc [25], is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to block
testimony of Mr. Choate is construed as a motion in limine and is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 15th day of October, 2020

MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

See Doc. [30-4].

2