Law & Justice

Georgia Homeowner Loses Lawsuit After Insurer Refuses to Pay $112,000 Repair Estimate

By TOI World Desk

A Georgia homeowner who returned from a two‑week trip to find an attic leak lost a lawsuit against his insurer. Torry Hull had requested more than $112,000 for repairs after Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana paid him about $13,844. On November 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of the insurer.

Hull discovered a leak from a condenser line in his attic and filed an insurance claim. Safeco sent an adjuster who assessed the damage at $17,187.02. After deductions, the company paid Hull $13,843.85. Dissatisfied, Hull obtained an independent estimate from Leading Public Adjuster Inc., which valued the repairs at $112,401.23 on a replacement‑cost basis and $104,187.45 on an actual‑cost basis. Hull demanded $112,401.23 from Safeco and threatened legal action if it refused.

Hull sued, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Safeco argued that Hull had not provided admissible evidence linking the additional repairs to the attic leak and could not establish that the disputed expenses were covered by his policy. Hull relied on the estimate and his testimony and sought to introduce evidence from Carlos Martorell, a public adjuster who helped prepare the estimate. However, he disclosed Martorell as an expert only after discovery had ended, citing a “clerical placement error.” Safeco objected, saying it had lost the opportunity to question Martorell during discovery.

The district court excluded Hull’s affidavit, ruling that the late disclosure was neither justified nor harmless. The court also found that the estimate did not connect the additional repairs to the leak, lacking a causation analysis, methodology, or other basis to help a jury determine whether the expenses were covered. Hull’s testimony was also insufficient; he lacked personal knowledge of the cause, scope, and necessity of the repairs.

The appeals court upheld the exclusion of expert evidence. It examined Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to exclude an expert’s evidence if a party fails to disclose the witness during discovery unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court considered the importance of the testimony, the reason for the late disclosure, and the prejudice caused to the opposing party. Only the first factor favored Hull. The court found Hull responsible for meeting his discovery obligations and that the late disclosure seriously affected Safeco, who had no opportunity to question Martorell.

The Eleventh Circuit also found no link between the repairs and the leak. The estimate merely listed repairs and their costs without explaining how they resulted from the attic leak. Hull’s deposition testimony did not help; he admitted he was not the estimator and had no involvement in the construction work. The court therefore upheld the decision on the breach‑of‑contract claim.

The court rejected Hull’s bad‑faith claim. Under Georgia law, he had to establish that the additional damage was covered by the policy, that he demanded payment before filing the lawsuit, and that Safeco refused payment in bad faith. The court found insufficient evidence that the additional repairs resulted from a covered loss and that Safeco had a reasonable basis for rejecting the demand. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ruling in Safeco’s favor on both claims.