Houston v. Southern Fidelity Insurance Co

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
             WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA                           
                 LAKE CHARLES DIVISION                               


LAKYN HOUSTON ET AL                CASE NO.  2:22-CV-01198                

VERSUS                             JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.               

SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE CO     MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC               

                 MEMORANDUM ORDER                                    

Before the Court is “Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of 
Daniel Treas” (Doc. 43).                                                  
                     BACKGROUND                                      
Plaintiff’s rental property was damaged by Hurricanes Laura and Delta on August 
27, 2020, and October 9, 2020, respectively. During the relevant time period, Southern 
Fidelity Insurance Company (“SFIC”) insured the property, but subsequently filed for 
bankruptcy.  Louisiana  Insurance  Guaranty  Association  (“LIGA”)  has  since  been 
substituted as the proper party.                                          
Plaintiffs allege that the damage to their property has been undervalued. After LIGA 
was substituted for SFIC, LIGA retained Keystone to inspect the property.  Plaintiffs move 
to exclude the report of LIGA’s expert, Daniel Treas, based on their assertion that the 
Treas’s report is unreliable.                                             
                  LAW AND ANALYSIS                                   
Evidence is generally admissible so long as it is relevant and not barred by the 
Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by 
the Supreme Court. Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Among other grounds, the court may 
exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by a 

danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting 
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Id. at 403.           
Evidence should only be excluded in limine where it is “clearly inadmissible on all 
potential  grounds.”  Hull  v.  Ford,  2008  WL  178890,  at  *1  (S.D.  Tex.  2008)  (citing 
Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). 
“Motions  in  limine  are  frequently  made  in  the  abstract  and  in  anticipation  of  some 

hypothetical circumstance that may not develop at trial.” Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. 
v. Bryan, 2010 WL 5174440, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 15, 2010) (quoting Collins v. Wayne 
Corp., 621 F.2d 777, 784 (5th Cir. 1980)). Evidentiary rulings, however, “should often be 
deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice can 
be resolved in proper context.” Id.; accord Baxter v. Anderson, 277 F.Supp.3d 860, 863 

(M.D. La. 2017). Additionally, motion in limine rulings “are not binding on the trial judge 
. . . and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler v. United 
States, 529 U.S. 753, 764 n. 3 (2000).                                    
Plaintiffs complain that Treas’s report is unreliable because he did not physically 
inspect the property, Treas did not conduct a reliable review of the previous expert’s report, 

discrepancies in the report, and the report is identical to the previous report. 
Plaintiffs assert that Keystone sent a building consultant, Luke Gehbauer to inspect 
their property on August 25, 2023, along with Keystone’s engineer. Gehbauer authored a 
report dated September 15, 2023, but shortly thereafter, he terminated his employment with 
Keystone.  Keystone then hired Treas to author a report that it will rely upon to support its 
estimate of damages to the property as a result of Hurricanes Laura and Delta. 

Plaintiffs complains that (1) the Treas report is identical to the Gehbauer report, (2) 
Treas is not a licensed adjuster, (3) Treas did not personally inspect the property, and (4) 
Treas was not involved in this matter until July 2024.  Plaintiffs also complain that there 
are some discrepancies in both reports, such as a missing fan on the rear elevation porch, 
the type of exterior cladding on the house, and the wrong address noted in the report. 
Finally, Plaintiffs complain that Treas opines as to causation.           

LIGA argues that Treas is qualified to testify as a building consultant regarding the 
estimate costs to repair the damage identified by Keystone’s engineer as being caused by 
the  Hurricanes.    LIGA  remarks  that  Treas  has  over  20  years  of  experience  in  the 
construction industry as a construction foreman, superintendent, estimator, catastrophe 
claims adjusters, project manager, and now as the Senior Building Consultant for Keystone.  

LIGA remarks that Treas relied on Keystone’s engineer regarding causation to 
prepare an estimate to rebuild the property. As to Plaintiffs’ complaint that Treas’ report is 
identical to Gehbauer’s report, Treas testified in his deposition, that the first twelve pages 
should be the same as they simply list the background regarding the property.  Treas also 
notes several differences in the reports, including additional damages not included in 

Gehbauer’s report as well as overall differences in the estimated damages.   
The Court does not find that exclusion is warranted just because the two reports are 
very similar. As to the discrepancies, the Court finds that this will go to the credibility of 
the witness and his report.  The Court further notes that the instant matter is a bench trial, 
and Plaintiffs will be able to cross-examine and rebut LIGA’s report and Treas’ testimony. 
Accordingly, 
 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony 
of Daniel Treas is DENIED. 
 THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this Ist day of October, 2024. 
          .  =      JAMES D.     JR.  C  . 
               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

                             Page 4 of 4