Beer, Larry v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, 3:19-cv-00306

Background

Plaintiffs Larry and Sharon Beer sued their insurer, The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, for breach of contract and bad faith over alleged hail damage to their property; trial was set for Oct. 5, 2020.
Central factual dispute: whether hail damage occurred during the policy period (notably March–May 2017 vs. May 2, 2018) and the amount of loss; parties used appraisal and competing estimates.
Travelers relied on a Benchmark Hail History Report and meteorological expert Jason R. Webster to show a likely hail event on May 2, 2018 (outside the coverage period).
Plaintiffs offered contractor/appraiser estimates (Virella, Miller) and a bad-faith expert Dan Doucette; Travelers moved to exclude Doucette’s late "supplemental" outline and other evidence.
The court resolved multiple motions in limine: admitted the Benchmark report, admitted Webster’s expert opinion, denied exclusion of evidence about subsequent storms, struck Doucette’s supplemental outline, and made several rulings reserved or partially granted as to appraisal-related evidence, estimates, fees, and neighbor testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Benchmark Hail History Report	Exclude as unsworn, unauthenticated hearsay	Authenticated by Travelers’ claim professional (testimony); business-records exception	Denied — authenticated via witness; admissible at least for state-of-mind and under Rule 803(6)
Exclude meteorologist Jason R. Webster	Opinion too equivocal ("likely"), unvalidated methodology, doesn't link hail size to damage	Qualified expert who analyzed radar data; methodology reliable and helpful	Denied — opinion admissible; limitations go to cross-examination, not exclusion
Exclude evidence of subsequent storms after policy period	Waived because Travelers didn’t raise it pre-suit	Relevant to plaintiffs’ burden to prove damage occurred during coverage; Conklin testified subsequent-storm evidence influenced appraisal decisions	Denied — relevant; lateness can be highlighted but not barred
Exclude testimony that Mr. Beer interfered with appraisal	Irrelevant; appraisers made independent estimates	Beer told his appraiser he distrusted Travelers; could have influenced the appraisal	Reserved — court inclined to grant exclusion but will hear further argument at final pretrial
Strike Dan Doucette’s supplemental opinions	Plaintiffs: supplemental outline justified	Travelers: late, unsigned 3-page "outline" is not an expert report and prejudices defense	Granted — supplemental outline not a report; Doucette limited to original report (which the court found largely irrelevant)
Exclude appraiser/contractor estimates, RCV claims, attorneys’ fees, neighbor testimony, and forensic "date of loss" opinions	Various challenges to admissibility and foundation	Plaintiffs: estimates relevant to amount of loss, efforts to repair/cooperate; neighbors’ testimony shows local storm/damage; RCV disputed on policy timing	Mixed: Most estimate evidence admitted (denied exclusion); court reserved on replacement-cost claim and attorneys’ fees; neighbor testimony allowed about storm and local damage but excluded regarding other insurers’ claim handling; forensic age opinions reserved pending disclosures

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge as gatekeeper; reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2007) (three-part test for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
Musser v. Gentiva Health Servs., 356 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (standards for disclosure and prejudice from late expert materials)
Lyman v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 719 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (discussion of liberal admissibility under the Federal Rules)
United States v. Johnsted, 30 F. Supp. 3d 814 (W.D. Wis. 2013) (expert testimony must be relevant and reliable)