Tree fell on their US home, but why did insurance reject their $85,000 claim? A court ruling reveals the costly mistake behind the dispute

On August 27, 2022, a tree fell on the home of the Cains family in the United States. The couple had a house insurance policy with State Farm, so they filed a claim. The company sent its own inspector, who confirmed that the tree had gone through the roof.

The trouble started with the amount. State Farm paid $10,042.90. The family had reports from engineers and a quote from a contractor, which put the repair cost at $95,896.07. The Cains disputed State Farm’s figure, and the insurer added $3,130.08. That brought the total to about $13,170, still far below what the family said it needed.

The two sides also disagreed over what the tree had actually damaged. State Farm’s report said some of the problems in the house were not caused by the fall. It linked them to long-term wear, such as temperature changes, poor upkeep and the ground settling under the building.


Insurance policies usually cover sudden events like a falling tree, but not slow damage that builds up over the years. So even when the tree is clearly at fault, the insurer can argue that only part of the damage qualifies.

How the family’s own expert report hurt their case

In June 2024, the dispute went to court. The Cains depended on an expert named Sean Fee, who works with Forensic Building Science. His job was to tell the court what repairs were needed and what they should cost.

His report had two weak points. It listed the repairs but did not break down the costs, so the court could not see how any figure was reached. It also mentioned a colleague from the same firm, Jim Irmiter. The family had formally named only Fee as their expert. With two names in the report, it was unclear who had done the actual analysis.

This is important because courts accept expert opinion only when it can be checked. The judges need to know who did the work, how they did it and whether that person can answer questions about it. If it is unclear whose work it is, the report may not be allowed as evidence.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit took that view. It threw out Fee’s reports and his testimony, saying it could not confirm who had carried out the analysis. The Cains challenged the decision again, but it did not change.

Without that expert evidence, the family could not back up their repair estimate in court. They stayed with the amount State Farm had already paid, a gap of roughly $82,700 against the contractor’s quote. State Farm avoided a much larger payout.

This case shows how a claim can be decided by procedure and not only by what happened to the house. The tree and the damage were not in dispute. The family lost because their expert evidence did not meet the court’s basic requirements.