The Grand Reserve of Columbus, LLC v. Property-Owners Insurance Company
17-10264
11th Cir.Jan 4, 2018Background
- Property-Owners insured The Grand Reserve of Columbus, LLC (apartment complex). A severe March 18, 2013 hail/wind storm allegedly damaged many roofs and other components.
- Grand Reserve sued Property-Owners for breach of the insurance policy, claiming widespread hail damage to roofs. A jury awarded against Property-Owners.
- Grand Reserve relied on expert witness Dansby to prove causation and damages; Dansby sampled roofs, used industry-standard methods, and converted replacement-cost estimates to actual cash value (policy measure) via depreciation.
- Property-Owners challenged (1) admissibility and qualification of Dansby under Daubert/Rule 702, (2) allowance of additional/unpled damage evidence after Grand Reserve rested, (3) sufficiency/speculation of damage proof, and (4) timeliness of Grand Reserve’s notice of loss.
- The district court admitted Dansby’s testimony (conducting some gatekeeping in front of the jury), permitted the reopened evidence/calculation of actual cash value, let the case go to the jury on damages and notice, and denied JMOL motions. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grand Reserve) | Defendant's Argument (Property-Owners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert under Daubert/Rule 702 | Dansby is qualified and used industry-standard methods; testimony admissible | District court abdicated gatekeeping by not ruling pre-trial and testimony was unreliable | Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; gatekeeping performed and Daubert need not be pre-trial |
| Qualification/scope of expert testimony on damages | Dansby qualified by 26 years’ experience and thousands of roofs examined; methodology reliable | Dansby was unqualified for damages and offered new opinions beyond scope | Waived some objections at trial; court properly found Dansby qualified and methodology reliable |
| Reopening case / allowing additional damage evidence after rest | Reopening limited to convert replacement value to actual cash value (depreciation) — proper and routine | Reopening unfair and prejudicial | Court affirmed discretion to reopen; conversion to actual cash value was permissible and non-prejudicial |
| Notice/timeliness of loss | Delay was reasonable given limited earlier repair reports and volume of routine work orders; notice questions for jury | Ten-month delay was untimely as a matter of law barring recovery | Court held timeliness/reasonableness was a fact question for jury; affirmed denial of JMOL |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony under Rule 702)
- McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.) (district court must perform Daubert gatekeeping)
- SEC v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir.) (failure to preserve objection waives argument)
- Hibiscus Assocs. Ltd. v. Bd. of Trustees, 50 F.3d 908 (11th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion to reopen evidence)
- Lundgren v. McDaniel, 814 F.2d 600 (11th Cir.) (upholding reopening to introduce evidence)
- United States v. One 1972 44’ Striker, Bonanza, 753 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.) (reopening evidence discretion)
- Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir.) (requirement to prove resultant damages under state law)
- McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.) (standard for JMOL and jury’s role in weighing evidence)
- Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712 (11th Cir.) (credibility and conflicting evidence are jury questions)
- Progressive Mountain Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 338 Ga. App. 115 (Ga. Ct. App.) (timeliness/justification of notice is for factfinder)