Opinion ID: 3056515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Engineer Craig’s Report

Text: Craig issued his engineering report to Georgia’s DOI on August 29, 2009. Craig outlined the scope of the damages that, in his professional opinion, was associated with the trees’ impact to the home. Craig concluded that there was no structural damage to the house caused by the falling trees, with the exception of possible minor damage to the two-story rear wall of the great room of the home. As part of his report, Craig reviewed both prior engineering reports. Notably, the scope of damages outlined in Craig’s report was less than that outlined in Creeden’s report. Craig noted that Creeden similarly concluded that there was no significant structural damage to the home. In Craig’s opinion, what Creeden had recommended was a structural reinforcement rather than repair of the two-story great room wall. And Craig disagreed with Creeden’s conclusion that the damage to the interior walls resulted from the tree impact. However, Craig concurred with Creeden’s recommendation to reinforce the two-story great room wall, “as a reasonable and prudent precaution.” Adjuster Westmoreland prepared a revised estimate based on Craig’s report, concluding that the full cost of repairs for the May 2009 tree loss was $8,558.85. Despite the revised lower estimate using Craig’s more limited scope of damages, State Farm issued Plaintiffs yet another check for $11,002.01 based on Plaintiffs’ Creeden report. Thus, State Farm twice sent checks to Plaintiffs to pay 5 Case: 12-11125 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 6 of 16 the scope of repairs outlined in Plaintiffs’ own engineer’s report. D. Repair Estimates by Contractors McCune and Lockhart Plaintiffs still argued the scope of the tree damages and resulting repair costs exceeded State Farm’s payments. Plaintiffs obtained cost estimates from licensed contractors James Michael McCune of AAA Restoration and Jerry Lockhart of LMS Construction. The McCune estimate totaled $187,030.69. McCune, however, testified that his estimate was based on all the items Plaintiffs wanted to have included in the estimate, and it was not limited to repairs that were necessary as a result of the tree damage. 1 McCune’s estimate was also not based on any engineering report. McCune is not an engineer, and he did not offer any testimony as to what was the scope of damages caused by the tree loss. McCune just estimated what Plaintiffs said was damaged and what they wanted repaired. When asked to prepare a revised estimate based upon Craig’s engineering report, McCune refused to do so and has had no further involvement in the case. As for the Lockhart estimate, that report lists repair items that total $184,018.62 in costs. Lockhart’s estimate also includes repair items beyond the scope of damages identified in any engineering report, such as repairs in the dining 1 Plaintiffs dispute this and say they did not instruct McCune in this way. Whether McCune was instructed in this way or not, it remains that McCune affirmatively testified that his estimate included more work than that resulting from the tree damage. 6 Case: 12-11125 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 7 of 16 room, the foyer, a bathroom, and the office. In any event Lockhart did not appear for his deposition, and Plaintiffs have not submitted an affidavit from Lockhart. As a result, there is no testimony as to Lockhart’s training and experience or upon what information he based his estimate. The record contains only Lockhart’s written estimate he gave Plaintiffs, and thus Lockhart’s statements in the report, without any testimony by Lockhart, are classic inadmissible hearsay. E. September 21, 2009 Water Damage On September 21, 2009, Plaintiffs made a water damage report to State Farm, claiming it was additional damage associated with the May 2009 tree loss. In a September 25, 2009 letter, State Farm acknowledged that Plaintiffs had “asserted a new claim for water damage” and stated that it would need to complete a visual inspection. State Farm inspected Plaintiffs’ property and determined the September 21, 2009 water damage was unrelated to the May 1, 2009 tree loss. In April 2010, State Farm told Plaintiffs that they must file a new claim for the September 21, 2009 incident in order to be considered for payment. F. March 10, 2010 Water Damage On March 10, 2010, Plaintiffs reported more and different water damage, this time from a leak in their study. State Farm inspected the property, determined it was unrelated to the tree damage but that it was a covered loss under the policy, and tendered $5,702.76 to repair the leak. 7 Case: 12-11125 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 8 of 16 G. Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit On April 13, 2010, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against State Farm in state court, alleging that State Farm breached the insurance contract and acted in bad faith. State Farm removed the suit to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After discovery, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm on the breach of contract claims, concluding that, inter alia, State Farm had shown an absence of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ contention that the damages from the May 2009 tree loss exceeded State Farm’s payments, which were based on Plaintiffs’ own engineer Creeden’s report. The district court distinguished between what damages were caused by the trees and the cost to repair those identified tree damages. First, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs had no expert that would testify that the damages caused by the trees exceeded the scope of the damages outlined in Plaintiffs’ own engineer Creeden’s report. The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that an expert was unnecessary on causation, agreeing with State Farm that the cause of damage to Plaintiffs’ home is a matter appropriate for expert testimony. Second, considering the cost to repair the tree damages, the district court agreed with Plaintiffs that an expert witness was unnecessary to testify to the repair costs. But 8 Case: 12-11125 Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Page: 9 of 16 the district court concluded that Plaintiffs also lacked any evidence that the repair costs exceeded State Farm’s payments. It determined that the Lockhart repair estimate amounted to inadmissible hearsay and the McCune repair estimate was not confined to repairs necessary as a result of the tree loss. The district court concluded that without any evidence to show that the tree damages or repair costs exceeded State Farm’s payments, a jury could not find that State Farm breached the insurance contract. The district court also granted summary judgment to State Farm on Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, concluding that State Farm had reasonable grounds to contest Plaintiffs’ claims and thus did not act in bad faith. The judgment ordered that Plaintiffs “take nothing” and that State Farm “recover [its] costs of this action.”