60 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Brown denies the insurance companies' motion to exclude the insurer's untimely identified medical expert in her complaint seeking recovery for injuries and property damages she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Because the insured has not yet reached maximum medical recovery, a brief continuance of the pre-trial deadlines and trial date is appropriate to allow her to complete her medical treatment, reach maximum medical recovery, and for the parties to complete discovery on damages.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Brown, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2969, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Snyder grants in part a homeowner’s motion in limine in an insurance coverage dispute regarding claims for damage caused to her home by fire, ash and rain. The insurer is precluded from arguing that a basement wall claim was the basis for the homeowner’s claim. Evidence of claims by other insureds is inadmissible. Undisclosed expert witnesses are excluded. One expert is precluded from offering engineering opinions or opinions on whether the engineering reports have merit.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv172, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Africk grants a request by a storm-displaced family, allowing them to add an expert appraisal umpire to their suit against an insurance company even though the family has not explained their failure to adhere to a court deadline. Because two other experts have been excluded, the testimony of the appraisal umpire is “significant.” Although the amendment to the witness list is close to trial, the insurer does not identify specific harm that would be caused by allowing the appraisal umpire to testify.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv218, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Damages, experts
J. Africk grants a couple’s belated request to add an expert witness to their suit against their insurance company alleging that inadequate compensation for their losses from Hurricane Ida in August 2021 have left them displaced from their home more than two years later. Although amendment of the witness list would be close to the date of trial, the insurer does not identify specific harm that would be caused by permitting the testimony of the expert, a neutral appraisal umpire. Further, the exclusion of other litigant experts renders the umpire’s testimony “significant" to the homeowners' case.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv218, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Rice denies the underinsured motorist insurance provider summary judgment against the insured's Consumer Protection Act claim regarding her hiring an insurance expert to evaluate the UIM insurance provider's conduct following her insurance claim for multiple injuries sustained in a car collision. It is unclear if the insurance expert's evaluation of the UIM insurance provider's alleged insurance malpractice related to the investigation is indeed separate from the instigation of the insured's CPA claim, so summary judgment is not appropriate at this time.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Rice, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv177, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Consumer Law, experts
J. Dein denies some motions from both parties in an individual's lawsuit against three insurance companies for unfair insurance claim settlement practices. The individual's motions to strike certain factual allegations and part of two experts' reports is denied, but his motion to withdraw a report is allowed. The insurance companies' motions to strike the individual's memorandum is denied but their motion to strike his statement of undisputed facts and memorandum of law is partially allowed and their motion to include an appeals court decision regarding the individual's post-trial fraud is allowed.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Dein, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv10652, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Cain awards more than $2 million, including attorney fees, to a Louisiana church after finding that its insurer acted in bad faith in its adjustment of a hurricane damage claim. Most of the insurer’s expert's report is "not credible" and the court gives very little weight to her opinions and assessment of damages. It is “incredible” that the insurer’s expert would not be able to report the correct wind speeds for Hurricane Laura “almost three years post-storm considering the abundance and ease of finding that information.”
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Cain, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv4014, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Damages, experts
J. Kugler allows an expert to present his opinion in claims contending an insurer failed to pay for property damage caused by heavy rains and wind because the expert report was based on multiple inspections, and the insurer may attempt to impeach the testimony as contradictory at trial.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Kugler , Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv15929, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Hicks grants a request by an insurance company dismissing bad-faith claims brought by their insureds, two Shreveport homeowners, arising from alleged roof damage caused by hail. The ruling finds no evidence exists to support a finding that the insurer acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Specifically, the homeowners have not submitted any evidence that shows that their insurer did not have a legitimate question as to whether the damage may have been caused by wear and tear. On the contrary, the insurer submitted evidence that shows that once the litigants reached an undisputed figure of $311,117, the insurer issued payment to the homeowners within the statutory time frame.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Hicks, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv634, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Evidence, insurance, experts
J. Marconi affirms the Compensation Appeals Board’s decision to grant an insurance carrier’s request to reduce an individual’s temporary total disability benefits to the diminished earning capacity rate. The testimony of the individual and the experts who treated her were inconsistent with each other, so an independent expert’s opinion was honored over their opinions.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court, Judge: Marconi, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 2021-0153, Categories: Health Care, insurance, experts
J. Holland grants an insurance company's motion to exclude expert opinions in an policy coverage dispute. The insured alleges its building suffered damage due to snow load. The insurance company paid only a portion of the claim, alleging that the estimate included upgrades that are not required by ordinance or law. The insured failed to disclose the experts by the expert witness deadline, and did not move to amend its witness list to add them, therefore their opinions are excluded. Allowing the insured to add expert witnesses at this point would delay the final stages of litigation.
Court: USDC Alaska, Judge: Holland, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 4:20cv23, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Holland grants in part a motion to exclude certain expert opinions in an insurance dispute regarding a roof failure. The insurer paid a portion of the repair estimate, claiming that the estimate included upgrades not required by "ordinance or law." The insurer also found that the roof failed due to poor construction rather than snow load, as the insured claimed. The insurance industry standards expert is not qualified to opine on whether the repair proposal would bring the building back up to code because he is not a building codes or construction expert. The expert's opinion on the defective design exclusion is his own opinion on the correct interpretation of the insurance contract, which is a legal conclusion, and must be excluded. The expert's opinion regarding the insurance company's net worth, as a “former head auditor and CPA with special expertise in
insurance accounting" shall be allowed.
Court: USDC Alaska, Judge: Holland, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 4:20cv23, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Cain grants partial summary judgment to an insurance company in a breach of insurance contract by two southwestern Louisiana homeowners who allege their carrier’s payments for damages from Hurricane Laura in 2020, were inadequate and untimely. Specifically, the insurer seeks summary judgment on its argument that the insured may not recover repair costs in excess of the $72,292 for which they have submitted proof and may not rely on estimates to prove the amount of damages for any repairs that have been completed. The homeowners both testified, however, that certain repairs have yet to be addressed, including the garage, attic and kitchen. They have therefore created an issue of fact as to the completion status of repairs. They are limited to the costs reflected in their invoices for completed repairs but may rely on estimates for other work.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Cain, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1381, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Damages, experts
J. Horan denies, in part, an insurer's motion to strike expert testimony in a home insurance coverage dispute. The expert's testimony is not unreliable, as he explains his methodology, and any issues the insurer has with his opinions can be addressed in cross-examination.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv713, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Huntsman denies the insurance company's motion to quash portions of a document subpoena in this lawsuit concerning the insurance claim on an automobile accident. The insurance company conceded that the requested materials are relevant in its prior argument to the court seeking documents from another non-retained expert. Also, the company lacks standing to object to the burden of the request, which seeks certain financial records from the analyst.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Huntsman, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv369, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Holland grants in part an insured's motion to exclude some expert opinions in an insurance coverage dispute regarding a roof failure due to snow load. The insurance company did not cover the full amount that the insured submitted for a repair estimate. One expert "is instructing on
what the law is in Alaska as it pertains to an insurance bad faith claim, which an expert is not permitted to do," therefore some of that expert's opinions are excluded.
Court: USDC Alaska, Judge: Holland, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 4:20cv23, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Howell allows the expert opinions and testimony of a forensic accountant in an insurance dispute over storm damages allegedly caused to an apartment complex by Winter Storm Uri in 2021. The insurance company argues that the expert was not accurately gauging the valuation and occupancy rate of the apartment, but while there are "obvious flaws" in some of the expert's opinions, that by itself "does not render them inadmissible."
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Howell, Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv735, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Breen denies the defendant insurance company's motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this breach of contract case involving a home fire. The court notes that the company's arguments speak to "the accuracy of the conclusions, not to the reliability of the testimony." The expert, who is an insurance consultant and property adjuster, inspected the property and "conducted a 3-D scan of the dwelling."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Breen, Filed On: July 20, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1079, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Evidence, insurance, experts
J. Mix denies the injured driver's motion to limit and strike the opinions of the insurers' medical expert in a breach of contract and bad faith action arising after the insurers denied the driver's claim for additional uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits following a car crash. The expert's opinions regarding velocity are not excluded because they are within his subject area of expertise and are based on his review of accident documents and other data.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Mix, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv37, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Contract
J. Nickell finds that the insurer may have improperly denied uninsured motorist benefits to plaintiff following a collision because the expert witness's lack of appropriate medical credentials should have prohibited him from testifying regarding plaintiff's injury. Reversed in part.
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court, Judge: Nickell, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 2021-SC-0281-DG, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Bourgeois grants requests by a physician and an orthopedic clinic, quashing an insurer’s subpoenas for 25 of 27 categories of documents. The ruling finds good cause to protect both clinic and the physician, a litigant’s rebuttal expert in a personal injury case, from the insurer’s overly broad and burdensome requests. The physician, under penalty of perjury, estimates that compliance with one request would require him to spend at least 30 minutes reviewing over 4,000 individual patient charts at his standard fee of $2,000 per hour (i.e. over $4 million). Requiring the production of documents sought for the sole purpose of providing potential statistical evidence to undermine the medical expert’s bias and credibility would be overly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Bourgeois, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv153, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery