“It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove.” That Denzel Washington line from Training Day may not have been written for insurance litigation, but it might as well have been. In a disputed property claim, everyone may believe they know about what happened, what caused the damage, and what it should cost to repair. But belief does not prove causation or scope. And a favorable opinion from an expert does not automatically become admissible evidence.
Recent wildfire claims offer a useful example. After the Palisades and Eaton fires, many homeowners were left dealing not only with visible damage, but also with smoke odor, ash, soot, debris, and concerns about combustion byproducts or heavy metals. In some homes, the dispute is not whether a fire occurred. Everyone agrees on that. The dispute is whether smoke, ash, or fire-related contaminants entered the property, whether they remain, whether ordinary cleaning is enough, and whether additional remediation, replacement, or testing is required. Public agencies have reported that post-fire testing in affected areas can reveal elevated lead or localized chemical impacts, but the answer for any particular property depends on the facts, the testing, and the expert’s ability to explain the connection to the loss.
That is where expert selection becomes critical. A policyholder may know the home still smells like smoke. A public adjuster may see a pattern of soot or residue. A lawyer may believe the carrier’s position is too narrow. But in litigation, the question becomes who can prove it, how did they test it, what standards did they use, and can they explain why their conclusion is more reliable than the carrier’s competing explanation?
Experts are not just case decoration. In many property insurance disputes, they are the bridge between a covered event and a recoverable loss. They may be needed to prove causation, date of loss, scope of damage, repair protocol, code requirements, pricing, habitability, or the reason a surface can be cleaned rather than replaced. When the expert is weak, the case may be weak even if the facts feel compelling.
The modern Rule 702 and Daubert problem is that before the jury hears the expert, the judge may have to decide whether the expert is qualified, whether the opinion will help the trier of fact, whether it rests on sufficient facts or data, whether it uses reliable principles and methods, and whether those methods were reliably applied to the facts of the case. The current federal rule places that burden on the party offering the expert under a “more likely than not” standard.
That matters because a polished CV is not the same thing as admissible testimony. An expert may be experienced, likable, and supportive of your theory, yet still be vulnerable. Maybe the expert is in the wrong discipline. Maybe the expert has never handled the specific type of loss at issue. Maybe the expert did not test. Maybe the expert relied on assumptions supplied by counsel. Maybe the report says “consistent with smoke damage” but never explains the standard, method, sample locations, chain of reasoning, or alternative causes. Those gaps may not look serious during the first phone call. They become serious when the other side files a motion to exclude.
Young attorneys are especially vulnerable to this mistake. The usual sequence is ask around, get a few names, review a website, schedule a call, hear that the expert “likes the case,” and move forward. But the expert you like may be exactly the expert the judge excludes. The question is not merely whether the expert agrees. The question is whether the expert can survive scrutiny when the carrier challenges qualifications, methodology, timing, disclosure, data, assumptions, or damages.
Before retaining an expert, counsel should do real vetting. At minimum, confirm license status, discipline-specific experience, conflicts, prior testimony, prior exclusions, and whether the expert has handled the same kind of claim before. Search legal databases such as Westlaw or Lexis for exclusion orders. Ask for deposition and trial history. For contractors, industrial hygienists, cause-and-origin consultants, engineers, appraisers, and remediation professionals, verify the license or certification directly when possible. Do not stop at the resume or CV.
After retention, the work is not over. Counsel should understand what facts the expert reviewed, what testing was performed, what standards were used, what assumptions were made, what alternative causes were considered, and whether the expert personally performed the work or merely adopted someone else’s conclusions. In a smoke, ash, or contamination case, for example, that may mean understanding sampling protocol, lab results, comparison standards, HVAC inspection, surface testing, odor evaluation, remediation feasibility, and the reason the expert connects the condition to the covered event rather than preexisting conditions, maintenance issues, or unrelated environmental sources.
The same discipline is needed when addressing carrier experts. It is rarely enough to argue that the insurer’s expert is biased. Bias may matter, but methodology usually matters more. The stronger attack is built through facts. What did the carrier expert inspect, what did they ignore, what testing did they decline to perform, what standards did they apply, what assumptions did they accept, and do their conclusions actually follow from their data? A reliable policyholder expert can expose those weaknesses. An underprepared one may simply create another vulnerability.
The takeaway for policyholders, public adjusters, and attorneys is to involve the right expert early, and choose that expert for admissibility and credibility before agreement. A favorable opinion is useful only if it can be explained, supported, disclosed, defended, and admitted. Hire for reliability first. Agreement should come second. For more on this topic, I suggest reading Merlin Law Group attorney Jimmy DePalo’s recent blog post, Expert Testimony Makes or Breaks a Property Insurance Case.