In a dispute over an insurance claim, a defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert wasn’t qualified to offer testimony.
In 2014, Plaintiff, a Nevada LLC, contracted for the construction of a residence in Paradise Valley, Arizona. In 2016, the homeowners noticed a leak in the garage of the home. This led to the discovery of problems with the construction. Defendant Insurance Company determined that it would cover $36,416 in costs associated with work undertaken by Plaintiff to resolve the issues in the home. However, it denied coverage for $42,900 in property damage. Defendant similarly declined to cover Plaintiff‘s management and overhead costs associated with the repairs. A few months after the initial coverage decision, Defendant readjusted the amount it was willing to pay downward to $27,362.97. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with that outcome and filed suit.
Defendant first asserted that Plaintiff‘s expert wasn’t qualified to offer testimony.
Read more at ForensisGroup.