Guidry-Davis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

1

ARETHA RAQUEL GUIDRY-DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

C. A. No. 1:22-cv-343-TFM-N

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

January 22, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TERRY F. MOORER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Now pending before the Court are three motions filed by State Farm: (1) Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Eduard Badiu, PhD, P.E. (Doc. 36, filed 07/21/23), (2) Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dennis James (Doc. 37, filed 07/21/23), and (3) State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 38, filed 07/21/23). Having considered the motions memoranda, supporting briefs, responses, replies, and relevant law, the motions to exclude (Docs. 36, 37) are DENIED and the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as discussed below.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

No party contests jurisdiction or venue, and the Court finds adequate support for both. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). The Court has personal jurisdiction over the claims in this action because the events that gave rise to this action occurred within this district. See Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt, Inc., 216 F.3d 1286, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Specific jurisdiction arises out of a party's activities in the forum that are related to the cause of action alleged in the complaint .... General personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, arises from a defendant's contacts with the forum that are unrelated to the cause of action being litigated. The due process requirements for general personal jurisdiction are more stringent than for specific personal jurisdiction and require a showing of continuous and systematic general business contacts between the defendant and the forum state.”). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claims in this matter occurred in this judicial district.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

As it must, the Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Aretha Guidry-Davis (“Guidry-Davis” or “Plaintiff”). Guidry-Davis is the owner of a residential home located on Wynnfield Drive West (“the Property”) in Mobile, Alabama. Doc. 1-2 at ¶ 1. On September 16, 2020, the Property sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Sally (“the Loss”). Id. at 6; Doc. 39 at 2.

At the time of the Loss, the Property was insured under a homeowner's policy issued by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant”), Policy No. 01-B2-N846-5, which covered the period 1/11/2021 to 1/11/2022 (the “Policy”). See Doc. 39-1 (State Farm Certified Policy Record). The Policy insured Plaintiff's dwelling located at the Property, its exterior and interior fixtures, Plaintiff's personal property, loss of use, and other applicable coverage. Id.; Doc. 1-2 at ¶ 5. The Policy contains a hurricane deductible of 2%, or $9,094.00 (Doc. 39-1 at 5), and pays the Actual Cash Value (ACV)^[1] of the damages and the Replacement Cost Value (RCV) upon completion of the repairs. Doc. 39-1 at 9.

Plaintiff filed a claim, No. 0-1-11P1-04,^[2] with State Farm after the Loss on September 18, 2020. Doc. 1-2 at ¶ 7; Doc. 39 at 3. According to State Farm, in the initial claim call Plaintiff reported wind damage to the roof and fence, along with water spots on the ceilings and tree debris damage. Doc. 39-2 at 16-17. During the call, State Farm also noted that Plaintiff was informed of her duty to mitigate damages and the policy allowance for reasonable costs incurred to mitigate damages along with the claims adjuster encouraging Plaintiff to document the loss with photos and to retain all receipts for reimbursement purposes. Id.

On September 29, 2020, State Farm scheduled an inspection of the Property and explained the hurricane deductible to Plaintiff's husband, Kevin Davis.^[3] Doc 39-1 at 4. Levi Thibault (“Thibault”), a State Farm claims handler certified in inspecting steep roofs, inspected the property on October 13, 2020, and prepared a claim note of his observations and conclusions regarding damage to the Property. Doc. 39-2 at 13. Id. On the interior, Thibault noted light water staining to the ceilings in the kitchen and downstairs hall bathroom. Doc. 39 at 4. On the exterior, Thibault noted no damage to any of the elevations and two sections of fencing that were blown down; in addition, Thibault observed light tree scraping to the main front slope and the left and right gable extension on the left front slope. Id. at 4-5.

Later that same day, Thibault prepared the State Farm estimate. Id. The estimate included allowances to spot paint and seal those areas in the interior noted above as well as replacement of each of the four slopes on the exterior. Doc. 33-2 at 239. Thibault also allowed for removal and replacement of 11.64 roofing squares, along with other roofing items; for a partial roof repair using the roofing measurements estimated by Thibault. Id. Thibault advised Plaintiff, via telephone and letter, that the loss would not exceed the policy's hurricane deductible, and that as a result State

5. The distinction does not ultimately affect the outcome of the case as the validity of underlying coverage is not in dispute.

Farm was unable to make a payment on the claim. Id. at 13, 77.

On April 19, 2021, Plaintiff hired Tommy Tompkins at ATA Loss Consulting, LLC (“ATA”) to conduct a secondary estimate of the property; the inspection was done on May 4, 2021. Doc. 39-2 at 25. The ATA estimate totaled $223,722.29 in damages to Plaintiff's property with a value of $212,716.73 after depreciation. Id. at 62-63. In response to the ATA estimate, State Farm requested a reinspection with State Farm Claim Specialist Eric McGill (“McGill”), Mr. Davis, and a representative of ATA present to take place on July 1, 2021. Doc. 39 at 6.

Upon reinspection, as to the exterior, State Farm found no additional damage to the fencing, no additional wind damage, no tree removal was required, and agreed with the scope of roof damage indicated in the original State Farm estimate. Id. On the interior, the reinspection noted the following storm-related damage:

light separation on crown molding in the entry/foyer; light separation on crown molding; window stool and casing need caulking in the office; peeling paint along the arch of the wall and ceiling in the living room; fireplace mantle had small crack in caulking in the living room; “2x2” water stain and light separation on crown molding in the kitchen; light separation on crown molding in the dining room; light separation on crown molding in both hallways; small crack on ceiling, minor separation on crown molding, window caulking and caulking on window stool in the master bedroom; light separation on crown molding in master bathroom; light separation on crown molding in the master bathroom toilet closet; large water stain; light separation of crown molding in the second-floor bathroom; no ADPL in bedroom 1; light separation on crown molding in bedroom 2; light separation on crown molding in bedroom 3; no ADPL in bedroom 4; small damage to drywall on the wall in game room; and window caulking and caulking on window stool in the game room.

Id. (citing SF 0027-0026). McGill also noted that there was no personal property being claimed. Id.

Based upon the reinspection, McGill revised the State Farm estimate to include the repairs of note to reconcile the ATA estimate with the initial State Farm estimate. Doc. 39-2 at 83-125.

The revised estimate totaled $22,155.31 with Plaintiff being issued a check for $7,205.25, the amount of the repair estimate less the hurricane deductible and depreciation. Id.; Id. at 9. In addition, State Farm informed Plaintiff that an additional $5,272.12 was available in replacement cost benefits for any repairs completed within two years of the date of loss upon notification to State Farm withing thirty days of completion. Id. 63-64.

Plaintiff hired licensed professional engineer Eduard Baidu (“Baidu”) of CeBB Engineering & Testing, Co to provide an expert assessment of the damages and determine their cause of origin. Doc. 36-1 at 1. Baidu inspected the Property on December 7, 2022, and April 5, 2023 and met with Plaintiff and her husband along with reviewing aerial images of the Property of property records. Doc. 48 at 2. Baidu's investigation identified wind borne debris impact damage, scuffs/abrasions/scratches; granule loss, contamination of sealant from debris and other foreign substances, and moss and leaf growth on the property's roof. Doc. 36-1 at 3. Baidu opined that, within a reasonable degree of engineering probability, roof and interior damages were, more likely than not, caused by wind, windborne debris and water intrusion that ultimately compromised the function and usefulness of the roof. Id. at 7.

As to the interior of the property, Baidu's investigation noted:

“(1) crown molding separation in the foyer and downstairs bathroom (Bathroom 1); (2) water damage to the ceiling in the family room; (3) water damage to the ceiling in the kitchen; (4) water damage to the ceiling in Bathroom 1; (5) water damage to the roof decking above an upstairs bedroom (Bedroom 2); (6) ceiling gypsum board separation in another upstairs bedroom (Bedroom 3); (7) water damage to the ceiling in the upstairs hallway; (8) ceiling gypsum board separation in the downstairs master bedroom; and (9) water damage to the ceiling in the garage.”

Doc. 48 at 2. Baidu opined that, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, the interior damages were caused by moisture/water...