Court Opinion

ID: 9896687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 01:00:35.26551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:12.292048
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20533        Document: 00516965607             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                November 13, 2023
                                      No. 22-20533                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   Cody Horton,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CV-3109
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         In this insurance coverage dispute, the district court held for Allstate,
   the insurer, and, on summary judgment, dismissed the complaint of Horton,
   the insured.      The dispositive question is whether the district court’s
   evidentiary rulings, to which Horton did not object, excluded Horton’s
   expert’s opinion as expressed in his deposition: that the damage to Horton’s
   metal roof was not merely uncovered cosmetic damage, but covered

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20533      Document: 00516965607          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                    No. 22-20533

   functional damage. Because we hold that the court’s rulings did not exclude
   this expert testimony, the record before us demonstrates a triable issue of
   fact, i.e., whether the damage to Horton’s roof was cosmetic or functional.
   Accordingly, the judgment is REVERSED and VACATED, and the case is
   REMANDED for further proceedings.
                                         I.
          On March 18, 2020, a contractor for Horton reported a claim to
   Allstate for hail and wind damage to Horton’s metal roof arising from a storm
   in 2019.     However, Horton’s homeowner insurance policy excludes
   “[c]osmetic damage caused by hail to the surface of a metal roof…” After
   investigating and concluding that the damage was only cosmetic, Allstate
   denied coverage. Horton then sued Allstate for breach of contract.
          Before the district court, Allstate filed two motions relevant to this
   appeal: (1) a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Horton’s expert
   witness, David Wilson, a licensed and independent insurance adjuster; and
   (2) a motion for summary judgment based, inter alia, on the cosmetic damage
   exclusion.
          In its first motion, Allstate argued that Wilson’s expert report was
   deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and under Fed. R. Evid. 702,
   because Wilson’s expert report lacked sufficient analysis.         The Court
   ultimately barred Wilson from testifying on several of the topics in his expert
   report but did not address whether Wilson could offer his expert opinion as
   to whether the damage to the roof was functional or cosmetic.
          In its second motion, Allstate moved for summary judgment.
   Relevant here, Allstate did not contest that Horton’s roof suffered hail
   damage; it argued that the damage to the roof was excluded as cosmetic
   damage. Horton, however, argued that there was a disputed question of fact
   on whether the damage was functional or cosmetic. In support of coverage,

                                              2
Case: 22-20533          Document: 00516965607            Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                          No. 22-20533

   Horton cited Wilson’s deposition testimony—that the Allstate adjuster’s
   photos clearly showed functional damage.1 This testimony has not been
   disputed or otherwise challenged by Allstate.
           Nevertheless, the district court granted summary judgment for
   Allstate based on the cosmetic damage exclusion. It reasoned that Allstate
   had produced evidence showing that the roof damage was cosmetic, and that
   Horton did not submit “any competent summary judgment evidence that
   raises an issue of fact that the damage was not cosmetic.” But the court
   overlooked, or chose not to address, Wilson’s deposition testimony. Horton
   now appeals.
                                               II.
           We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
   Terral River Serv., Inc. v. SCF Marine Inc., 20 F.4th 1015, 1017 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
   dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
   matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                                              III.
           As we have noted, the disputed issue on appeal is whether Wilson’s
   specific conclusion on the presence of functional damage, as expressed in his
   deposition, falls within the district court’s unchallenged exclusionary rulings.
           The district court excluded: (1) testimony on “the policy provisions”
   at play, with the exception of testimony that wind and hail are covered perils;

           _____________________
           1
               While Allstate’s motion to exclude David Wilson’s expert report was pending,
   Allstate deposed Wilson.      In that deposition, Wilson elaborated on photographs of
   Horton’s roof taken by Allstate’s adjusters and concluded, and indeed insisted, that the
   roof suffered functional damage.

                                                     3
Case: 22-20533      Document: 00516965607          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/13/2023

                                    No. 22-20533

   (2) testimony on “how one determines whether a roof has been damaged by
   wind or hail;” and (3) testimony on whether the roof “was even damaged by
   wind or hail.”
          The court’s exclusions do not address whether Wilson could testify to
   his expert observations that the damage was functional. Policy provisions,
   methods for discerning damage, and the cause of damage itself are irrelevant
   to that end. It should be noted that Wilson’s deposition occurred after
   Allstate moved to exclude Wilson’s prior testimony, and Allstate never
   amended its motion to reflect this deposition. In short, the judge’s exclusions
   did not bar Wilson’s expert testimony that the damage to the roof was
   functional.
          Because the district court’s exclusions did not bar Wilson’s
   functional-damage opinion, it constitutes competent summary judgment
   evidence. As such, this evidence creates a classic “battle of the experts,”
   which presents a question for the jury. Cox v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
   Co., 878 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 2017). The district court did not address this
   evidence and for that reason, summary judgment on the cosmetic damage
   exclusion was improper and the case will be remanded for the district court’s
   further consideration.
                                        IV.
          In sum, the district court erred when it did not address Wilson’s
   expert testimony that Horton’s roof suffered functional damage, and thus
   raises a question of fact as to whether the damage was cosmetic or functional.
   The district court’s judgment is, accordingly, REVERSED, VACATED,
   and REMANDED for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
                             REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED

                                              4