ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.

This lawsuit involves a dispute about the Plaintiffs' obligations under an insurance policy following a January 2013 fire at the Reaching Souls Cathedral of Praise chapel in Macon. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy at issue is void ab initio as to Defendant Bert Witham1 or that the policy does not provide coverage for property lost in the fire. (Doc. 8). Witham has filed a counterclaim asserting the Plaintiffs have an indemnity obligation to him because he held a mortgage interest in the property that burned. (Doc. 10). In support of his counterclaim, Witham disclosed experts who will offer opinions as to the value of the real and personal property damages he allegedly sustained. (Doc. 27-1 to Doc. 27-15).

The Plaintiffs have moved to strike these experts. (Doc. 27). The Plaintiffs argue the experts' opinions are irrelevant because, as to the buildings and structures, they considered the "replacement cost value" rather than "actual cash value." The policy provides only for actual cash value, according to the Plaintiffs. Similarly, the Plaintiffs contend opinion as to the loss of personal property inside the buildings is irrelevant because the policy limits Witham's potential coverage to real property. Witham disputes these interpretations of the policy, which he alleges provides coverage for replacement cost value and for personal property.

Nevertheless, in response to the motion to strike, Witham's experts supplemented their disclosures to offer opinion regarding "actual cash value" of the real property and to address deficiencies the Plaintiff raised as to their methodology. (Doc. 31-1; Doc. 31-2). According to Witham, the Plaintiffs had not deposed the experts at the time they filed their supplemental reports. (Doc. 31). Moreover, to whatever extent the supplemental reports may have been untimely, there is no evidence or argument the Plaintiffs have actually been prejudiced. Finally, the Court will not resolve at this time issues related to the relevance of yet-to-be deposed experts when those issues require the Court to reconcile disputed interpretations of the insurance policy. Those questions would be more suitably addressed in Daubert or dispositive motions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to strike is DENIED.

However, the Court will allow the Plaintiffs additional time to disclose rebuttal experts. Disclosure must be made within 30 days of the filing of this Order. Additionally, the discovery period in this case is extended through September 5, 2014 for the purpose of deposing the Plaintiffs' rebuttal experts. The deadline for filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions is extended through October 6, 2014.

SO ORDERED.