Credeur Trust v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

598 F.Supp.3d 474

CREDEUR TRUST

v.LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO

CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00126

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.

Signed April 12, 2022

Trent Jared Moss, Galen M. Hair, Hair Shunnarah Trial Attorneys, Metairie, LA, for Credeur Trust.

H. Minor Pipes, III, Christopher R. Teske, Katherine Lynne Swartout, Patrick J. Lorio, Pipes Miles & Beckman, Andrew Caleb Rayford, Jones Walker, New Orleans, LA, Etheldreda Culpepper Smith, Law Office of Etheldreda Culpepper Smith, Shreveport, LA, for Liberty Personal Insurance Co.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

JAMES D. CAIN, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is "Liberty Personal Insurance Company's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witness Mario Barrilleaux" [Doc. 17] filed by defendant Liberty Personal Insurance Company¹ ("Liberty"), who moves to exclude testimony and estimate provided by Mario Barrilleaux, Plaintiff's expert public adjuster. Plaintiff Credeur Trust² opposes this motion [Doc. 27]. All briefs have been filed, as such, the issue is now ready for ruling.

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from damages caused by Hurricane Laura, on August 27, 2020, to a property located at 4549 Powell Lane, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70605 (the "Property").

Liberty issued homeowners policy No. H3F29182041440, effective October 3, 2019 to October 3, 2020, to Credeur Trust Trustee and Rebecca Credeur. The policy has coverage limits of $228,600 for dwelling, $22, 860 for other structures, $0 for personal property, and $45,720 for additional living expenses.

Hurricane Laura impacted Lake Charles, Louisiana on August 27, 2020. That same day, Shane Heinen, presenting himself as representative of Credeur Trust, reported that the hurricane damaged the insured property. A field adjuster assigned by Liberty inspected the property on September 12, 2020, and found damage to the property's roof, exterior light fixture, soffit, fascia, gutter downspout, brick veneer, vinyl shed roof, attached carport, patio awning, and fence.

Heinen, acting on behalf of the Credeur Trust, retained Complete Adjusting Services, LLC ("CAS") to inspect the property. Mario Barrilleaux, CAS's owner, inspected the property on September 25, 2020. Doc. 17-4 Mario Barrilleaux's Narrative Report. Based on that inspection, Barrilleaux wrote an estimate which asserted that the property has suffered a physical loss of $237,855.28 under Coverage A for the dwelling; $15,932.66 under Coverage B for other structures; $15,543.04 under Coverage C for contents; $1,198.68 for debris removal; and $23,260.33 under Loss of Use. Doc. 17-7 CAS Estimate.

LAW & APPLICATION

A. Governing Law

Evidence is generally admissible so long as it is relevant and not barred by the Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Among other grounds, the court may exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Id. at 403.

Evidence should only be excluded in limine where it is "clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Hull v. Ford , 2008 WL 178890, at *1 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (citing Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc. , 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ). "Motions in limine are frequently made in the abstract and in anticipation of some hypothetical circumstance that may not develop at trial." Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. v. Bryan , 2010 WL 5174440, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 15, 2010) (quoting Collins v. Wayne Corp. , 621 F.2d 777, 784 (5th Cir. 1980) ). Evidentiary rulings, however, "should often be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice can be resolved in proper context." Id. ; accord Baxter v. Anderson , 277 F.Supp.3d 860, 863 (M.D. La. 2017). Additionally, motion in limine rulings "are not binding on the trial judge ... and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial." Ohler v. United States , 529 U.S. 753, 764 n. 3, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000).

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides the standard for admissibility of expert testimony at trial:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Rule 702 codifies the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The threshold inquiry in determining whether an individual may offer expert testimony under Rule 702 is whether the expert possessed the requisite qualifications to render an opinion on particular subject matter. Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 813 F. Supp. 2d 771, 798 (E.D. La. 2011). The district court is afforded broad discretion in determining whether testimony should be held admissible. Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin , 138 F.3d 1036, 1050 (5th Cir. 1998).

B. Application

Liberty argues that Barrilleaux lacks the requisite qualifications to testify as to the cause of damage to the insured property. Liberty asserts that Barrilleaux's license as a public adjuster and background as a general contractor may qualify him to testify as to his estimated for repair at trial, he has no specialized knowledge regarding forensic engineering and structural and architectural engineering that would qualify him to testify as an expert as to the cause of structural damage or water intrusion to the insured property. Liberty further argues that Barrilleaux's methodologies are unreliable, and...