Cases

A court of the Northern District of Texas granted in part an insurer’s motion to strike an insured’s experts and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, striking one expert’s causation opinions because the expert made no attempt to tie any storm damage to the alleged date of loss, striking another rebuttal expert whose report fell outside the scope of an appropriate rebuttal designation because it did not relate to any specific findings of an opposing expert, and granting the summary judgment motion because the insured had no evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact under the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion