Hill, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IVY HILL ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 22-3239
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s
Motion 	in 	Limine 	(Doc. 	46). 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	the 	Motion 	is
GRANTED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ivy Hill and Stephanie Paige-Hill allege that their property at
182 	Kemp 	Street, 	Independence, 	Louisiana, 	sustained 	damage 	during
Hurricane Ida in August 2021. They allege that their insurer, Defendant State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company, acted in bad faith and failed to provide
coverage for the damages. In support of their claim, Plaintiffs produced a May
16, 2022 inspection report purportedly prepared by Brandon Johnson with
iScope Loss Consulting. Through the course of discovery, however, it was
revealed that neither Mr. Johnson nor any known representative of iScope
Loss Consulting drafted the report. Indeed, the parties were unable to identify
Case 2:22-cv-03239-JTM-DPC Document 60 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
the author of the report, and the Court granted a continuance to allow
Plaintiffs to obtain a new damages estimate report.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs retained Mahlon Jager of Side by Side, Inc. Mr.
Jager 	prepared 	a 	new 	damages 	estimate 	report 	dated 	June 	19, 	2024.
Defendant has moved to exclude Mr. Jager’s testimony, arguing (1) that he
cannot testify regarding causation and (2) that his report is not in compliance
with Rule 26.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
First, Defendant moves to exclude Mr. Jager’s testimony regarding the
cause of the damage to Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs agree that Mr. Jager will not
opine as to causation. They contend that his report provides only a detailed
estimate 	of 	the 	damage 	to 	the 	property 	and 	associated 	repair 	costs.
Accordingly, Mr. Jager will not be permitted to testify regarding causation.
Next, 	Defendant 	asks 	this 	Court 	to 	exclude 	Mr. 	Jager’s 	testimony
entirely because it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 26 for either
retained or non-retained experts. The Court allowed Plaintiffs to substitute a
new damages report in place of the one prepared by their prior non-retained
expert, and therefore the Court finds it proper to treat Mr. Jager as a non-
retained expert. This Court reads Rule 26(a)(2)(C) to require that a party need
only disclose the name of a non-retained expert along with the “subject matter
on which the witness is expected to present evidence” and “a summary of the
facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.”1 Plaintiffs timely
1 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26(a)(2)(C).
Case 2:22-cv-03239-JTM-DPC Document 60 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
disclosed that Mr. Jager would testify as to “the estimate/appraisal based on
the current market conditions. The prices set forth in the Xactimate and the
calculations and configurations and scientific methods used to calculate the
summary of the loss. Mr. Jager will also testify to the damages he observed
and the photographs he took at the loss site.”2 They also disclosed that Mr.
Jager would opine that “the total appraisal/estimate for the property” is
$256,614.03.3 Plaintiffs also provided Defendant with Mr. Jager’s estimate and
photographs 	from 	his 	inspection. 	The 	Court 	therefore 	finds 	Plaintiffs’
disclosure 	of 	Mr. 	Jager’s 	testimony 	to 	be 	in 	compliance 	with 	Rule 	26’s
requirements for non-retained experts.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED
IN 	PART, 	and 	Plaintiffs’ 	expert, 	Mahlon 	Jager, 	will 	be 	precluded 	from
testifying regarding causation at trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 22nd day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Doc. 47-1 (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Rule 26 Initial Disclosures).
3 Id.
Case 2:22-cv-03239-JTM-DPC Document 60 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3