A Tree, a $95,896 Claim and One Unclear Expert Report: Why a Mississippi Couple Lost to State Farm
State Farm won a $95,896 claim dispute with a Mississippi couple, with an unclear expert report central to the case.
State Farm is at the centre of a Mississippi insurance dispute involving a $95,896 claim after a fallen tree damaged a couple’s property.
State Farm: On October 16, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by Dustin and Amanda Cain against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. The couple had sought far more than the $13,172.98 the insurer paid on their homeowners claim. The court found that their expert reports did not show which opinions belonged to the expert they had formally named. With those reports excluded, the couple had no admissible evidence of what caused the damage or what it would cost to repair.
State Farm: From a punctured roof to a $95,896 dispute
The Cains held a homeowners policy with State Farm. After the tree fell, the insurer inspected the property and found the impact had punctured the roof. It attributed other problems around the house to causes unrelated to the tree: temperature-driven expansion and contraction, deferred maintenance and settlement. State Farm treated that damage as outside the policy and made an initial payment of $10,042.90.
The couple disagreed and sought independent advice. An engineer’s report and a contractor’s estimate put the damage to the home, swimming pool and concrete at $95,896.07, several times what State Farm had paid.
Also Read: Insurers May Be the Unlikely Winners in the Tata Sons-Tata Trusts Boardroom Battle
State Farm reviewed its earlier inspection, examined the property again and revised its estimate. It paid a further $3,130.08, bringing the total to $13,172.98. The couple did not accept that figure, and the dispute went to court.
State Farm: The lawsuit and the expert report
On June 6, 2024, the Cains sued State Farm, seeking $134,994.54. The claim covered alleged breach of contract and the insurer’s handling of the matter, plus consequential damages, legal fees, court costs and interest.
Their case depended on showing that the tree had caused the disputed damage. They named Sean Fee of Forensic Building Science (FBS) as their expert witness. His report, submitted on December 6, 2024, recommended repairs but did not break down their costs.
The report stated that Fee had prepared it with Jim Irmiter, a colleague at the same firm, and that both men had contributed to it, reviewed it and agreed with it. Only Fee had been formally designated as an expert.
On March 4, 2025, the deadline for completing discovery, the Cains filed a second jointly prepared document. It put repair costs at $149,325.66. State Farm challenged both that estimate and Fee’s proposed testimony. It argued that Fee could not present another person’s analysis as his own, particularly since Irmiter had not been designated. It also said the reports did not make clear which conclusions Fee reached personally or how he reached them.
The Cains asked the district court to accept the later estimate despite its timing. Their lawyers said counsel had a medical condition that required surgeries and treatment between December 2024 and March 2025.
State Farm: What the courts decided
On July 24, 2025, the district court struck the reports and Fee’s testimony. It found they did not make clear who had done the work or formed the opinions, so their reliability could not be properly assessed. Without that evidence, the court granted summary judgment to State Farm and dismissed the case with prejudice. That means the claims cannot be refiled as a new lawsuit.
The Cains appealed, arguing that a report is not inadmissible merely because two people worked on it. They said Fee and Irmiter presented one shared assessment, not competing opinions.
In Cain v. State Farm (No. 25-60442), the Fifth Circuit did not bar experts from preparing reports together. It said a joint report can be acceptable, but the court must be able to tell what each designated expert intends to say and the reasoning behind it. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires a testifying expert’s report to disclose the witness’s own opinions and the basis for them.
Another rule, Rule 703, lets experts rely on information from others, but the court noted it does not excuse a report from identifying the testifying witness’s own analysis. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the panel held the district court acted within its authority in striking the reports. Stating that both men contributed, reviewed and agreed did not separate their work.
Summary judgment followed, the court said, because without admissible expert testimony the Cains could not prove causation or damages.
State Farm: Bad-faith and related claims fall with the contract claim
The Cains also argued that some claims should survive on their own: delayed payment, punitive damages and actual cash value. The court rejected that argument. Under Mississippi law, a bad-faith insurance claim requires an underlying breach of contract. Once the contract claim could not be proved, the related allegations could not proceed independently.
The panel did not decide whether the second estimate was properly excluded as untimely. It also did not decide whether Fee’s proposed testimony would have failed a separate test of scientific or technical reliability.
The decision is an unpublished, per curiam opinion, meaning it was not designated for publication under the court’s rules and is non-precedential. The outcome also does not amount to a finding that all the disputed damage came from wear or poor maintenance. It turned on whether the evidence the Cains offered could be admitted to prove their case.
