Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nicholas and Amy Iademarco sued their neighbor, Thomas Preli, and his construction company after Preli built a home on the adjacent lot. They alleged that Preli raised the building pad and altered the land’s drainage, causing water to flow onto their property and damage their home’s flooring, deck, pool area, and yard. Their claims included negligence, trespass, nuisance, and violations of the Texas Water Code.
After the Iademarcos presented their case, the trial court directed verdicts for Preli on every claim. It concluded that geotechnical engineer Joseph Cibor’s causation opinion was unsupported ipse dixit and therefore no evidence, and that the homeowners also failed to prove the reasonable and necessary cost of repairs. The Iademarcos appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed. Because subsurface water movement and foundation damage were beyond lay jurors’ common understanding, the homeowners needed reliable expert testimony connecting runoff from Preli’s property to their damage. Cibor relied on experience, observations, soil-moisture data, and photographs, but did not perform hydrological studies or measurements quantifying slab movement, distinguish Preli runoff from rainfall and the homeowners’ irrigation, or exclude other plausible causes. Those alternatives included temperature-related tile cracking documented before Preli’s construction, preexisting settlement indicators, seasonal groundwater variation, and the lots’ natural elevation difference.
The court separately held that the repair estimates did not prove recoverable damages. Although contractor Michael Riese supplied estimates ranging from $104,915 to $201,630, he did not adequately explain the labor and material calculations, and the record contained no other evidence establishing that the proposed charges were reasonable and necessary. The causation and damages failures were dispositive, so the court did not reach the homeowners’ remaining issues.
Key Takeaways
- Claims alleging property damage from subsurface water movement require competent expert evidence when causation lies beyond ordinary jurors’ experience.
- An expert’s credentials, observations, and experience do not establish causation when the opinion lacks reliable testing and fails to exclude plausible alternative causes with reasonable certainty.
- Repair estimates alone do not prove damages; a claimant must also present evidence that the proposed costs are reasonable and necessary.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary demands facing Texas property owners who attribute structural damage to altered drainage. Proof that runoff occurred, or even increased during neighboring construction, does not by itself establish that the runoff caused particular foundation or flooring damage.
It also warns litigants to support repair bids with testimony or other evidence addressing market pricing, calculation methods, and the necessity of the proposed work. Without reliable proof of both causation and reasonable repair costs, property-damage claims may fail before reaching a jury.