Month: July 2013

This lawsuit arose from a claim to American Family for wind damage to roofing that allegedly occurred at six apartment buildings owned by Plaintiff.  American Family’s adjuster promptly inspected the roofs at the complex and found that the amount of wind damage to the roof fell below Plaintiff’s deductible.  Subsequently, Plaintiff retained a public adjuster who demanded that American Family re-inspect the property as he believed that all 6 roofs needed to be replaced. When the insured and American Family could not reach an agreement regarding the appraisal for the roofs, Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, common law bad faith and statutory breach of contract.

The roofing expert retained during litigation by American Family determined that there was minimal damage to the subject roof. Plaintiff’s roofing expert inspected the property and alleged that all 6 of the roofs needed to be replaced due to unsealed shingles. In addition, Plaintiff’s expert claimed that the stucco on the exterior wall cladding and windows of the apartment building were damaged and needed to be replaced resulting in over three million in damages.

Lambdin & Chaney successfully argued that American Family’s conduct was reasonable and the U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello granted American Family’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s extra-contractual claims.

At trial, Plaintiff’s witnesses admitted that the roofs had been inspected prior to the alleged storm, and the prior estimates stated that the roofs required maintenance and replacement. Plaintiff’s expert testified and opined that all 6 roofs needed to be replaced because the seal tabs became unsealed due to wind damage. Upon cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s expert regarding his “unsealed tab” theory, an email from the expert to the public adjuster was introduced which stated that the public adjuster’s report was “wholly inadequate.”  The expert was also discredited with prior lawsuits and bankruptcies involving the expert, as well as cross-examination regarding the information relied upon in his report.

The Court held a 702 hearing and ultimately held that Plaintiffs could not testify to any non-roof related damage.  American Family then presented the testimony of its adjuster and its roofing expert.  Both testified that unsealed shingles could be re-sealed, and the repair estimate in this case fell below Plaintiff’s deductible.

The jury found that there was a storm event, there was damage to Plaintiff’s roofs, but the damage fell within the wear and tear, improper maintenance, or negligence exclusions under Plaintiff’s insurance policy.