63 results for 'cat:"Insurance" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Jones orders the insureds to respond to two of the insurance company's interrogatories for the insureds' complaint alleging that the insurance company must fully cover the insureds' underinsured motorist claim. One of the interrogatories is relevant to the case because it deals with employment history and the insureds claim that they lost substantial wages, while the other interrogatory deals with why the insureds think that the insurance company violated the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and the insureds cannot delegate their duty to respond on their expert witness.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Jones, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv420, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Russell denies the defendant insurance company's motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this breach of contract lawsuit involving damage to a boat dock. The court finds that the expert is "qualified and his methodology is reliable." However, the court will partially grant the company's motions in limine. Specifically, the expert cannot define the company's "duty of good faith and fair dealing" or provide an opinion "on the ultimate conclusions" as to whether the company acted in bad faith.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Russell, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 4:18cv504, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Contract
J. Brennen grants, in part, the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on counterclaims brought by a business owner in this insurance dispute after a fire damaged his apartment building. The court holds that the owner is barred from the 12-month cap in coverage on the business income, notes he failed to submit additional building repair to the appraisal panel, says his claim for mortgage interest is unsupported, and rules the unpaid business income he requests is based on gross income, not net computation. The insurer's motion to strike an affidavit of the owners managing member and expert witness are denied because the motion is harmless.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Bennan, Filed On: March 30, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv1032, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Damages, experts
J. Pepper partially grants Progressive's motion to exclude expert reports in the insured's class action arguing Progressive improperly calculates the actual cash value of insureds' totaled cars in order to short them on coverage. One of the three experts Progressive challenges is prohibited from testifying about the valuation process or methodology used by a company Progressive relies upon for such work, but Progressive's motion is denied as to two other experts. Progressive's unopposed motion for oral argument regarding class certification and summary judgment is granted, and arguments are scheduled for June 26, 2024.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv364, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Class Action
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. Chestney grants an insurance company’s motion to exclude expert testimony in an insurance dispute with policyholders over damages from Winter Storm Uri while also denying a separate motion to exclude by those policyholders. While the policyholders have attempted to designate as experts adjusters and contractors who reviewed alleged damage to their home, they have not shown these individuals are relying on sufficient facts or data to provide reliable court testimony. Conversely, the insurance company has shown that its plumbing expert is reliable, and that person should be allowed to testify.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Chestney, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv1110, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, insurance, experts
J. Upadhyaya grants the FDIC’s motion to strike certain expert reports in its case against Bank of America for allegedly improperly reducing its FDIC insurance premiums by $1.12 billion between 2012 and 2014. Certain opinions are impermissible, as one is a legal opinion, while another invades the province of the jury.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Upadhyaya, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 1:17cv36, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: insurance, experts, Banking / Lending
J. Jolivette Brown denies a request by insurers to exclude the damage estimates of a certified public accountant for a high school suing a flooring company for fire damage to its gymnasium. The insurers argue a reasonable juror is capable of adding numbers and calculating the soft costs element, which requires one act of multiplication to obtain a 10% sub-amount. While a jury may be capable of adding and multiplying numbers, the fact that a “soft costs” calculation requires a 10% sub-amount is not within the common knowledge of lay person. As such, the expert’s testimony will assist the jury.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Jolivette Brown, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv5292, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: insurance, Damages, experts
J. Beaverstock denies a condo association’s motion to exclude experts and motion to strike as moot in this insurance dispute stemming from Hurricane Sally damage. The association alleges that an engineer and a building consultant retained by the insurer are not qualified and that both of their methodologies were unreliable. The court finds both experts’ testimony will be able assist in this case.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: Beaverstock, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv257, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Tostrud makes rulings on six of the insurer's motions in limine in its declaratory-judgment suit related to child sexual abuse by its insured's priest. A single motion in limine brought by the priest's alleged victims seeking to exclude evidence of two prior alleged acts by the priest from the 1960s is denied, since while they did not cause physical injury they are nevertheless relevant to showing whether future sexual abuse was substantially probable.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 0:20cv2261, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Evidence, insurance, experts
J. Sweeney partially denies a motion to strike expert opinions in a construction defects suit. The expert can testify about the relevant insurance industry standards concerning an insurer's duty to investigate claims and whether QBE Insurance's conduct was consistent with industry standards. However, he may not testify as to whether QBE's conclusions were unreasonable.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Sweeney, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv2520, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Ashe denies summary judgment to an insurer on its refusal to cover a church's hurricane-related coverage request for a full replacement of its approximately 42,300 square-foot roof, including a warehouse. The insurer has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating there are no disputed issues of material fact concerning whether the building needs an entire roof replacement. As to the church's bad-faith claims, genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the timely payment of undisputed amounts, and the timeliness and sufficiency of the insurer's investigation and adjustment of the church's insurance claim.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Ashe, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv3130, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Evidence, insurance, experts
J. Moorer denies, in part, State Farm’s motion for summary judgement on claims related to bad-faith denial of coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sally. The homeowner has sufficient evidence that the damage repairs were necessary and reasonably priced. The homeowner conceded the bad faith claim and summary judgment will be granted. The court denies the insurance company’s motion to exclude two expert testimonies. The qualifications of both experts go to evidence and can be addressed during cross-examination.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: Moorer, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv343, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. White grants the insurer's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony regarding how the insurer departed from industry standards in handling the plaintiff's motor vehicle claim because she is a legal expert, not an expert on insurance industry standards. The insurer's partial motion for summary judgment is also granted limiting the amount of uninsured motor vehicle coverage to $25,000.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Missouri, Judge: White, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv724, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Vehicle, experts
J. Schreier denies a motion for summary judgment brought by a steel company following the collapse of a hopper bin which killed two individuals. The insurance company's motion to exclude expert testimony as moot is also denied. Punitive damages are not available unless a tort has been committed. Because the steel company's bad faith claim is dismissed, summary judgment is granted in favor of the insurance company on the steel company’s request for punitive damages.
Court: USDC South Dakota, Judge: Schreier, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv4156, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, Product Liability, experts
J. Lindsay grants, in part, a group of businesses' motion for reconsideration of the admissibility of expert testimony in an insurance coverage dispute concerning a roof. Although one of the experts is not qualified to testify whether the roof needs to be replaced rather than repaired, he can testify as to the damage to the roof and the causes of damage.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Lindsay, Filed On: December 12, 2023, Case #: 3:16cv2255, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Huntsman denies the plaintiff homeowners' motion to strike certain expert testimony in this breach of contract lawsuit against the defendant insurance company. The homeowners allege that their home was damaged by wind and hail and that the insurance company failed to adequately compensate their loss. The court now finds that the expert's report is admissible, as he has "a sufficient basis to support his opinion."
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Huntsman, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv432, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Rodriguez grants the real estate company's motion to substitute an expert witness in its lawsuit over an insurance payment for damage and repair to the real estate company's property. The company's original expert witness became unavailable due to his wife's health issues more than a month after his timely designation, which was outside of the company's control. The deadline to designate expert witnesses is granted for the sole purpose of allowing the company to redesignate this expert.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1789, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Burke grants summary judgment and denies as moot an insurer’s motion to strike expert testimony in a homeowner’s hailstorm damage dispute. The insurer argues the homeowner had cancelled his policy before the damage occurred and the claim was properly denied. The expert was from AccuWeather, and his reports are relevant to the case but there was no evidence to change the decision for summary judgment. This case shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Burke, Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv289, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts
J. Bell partially grants a consumer’s motion to stay his case against an insurance company, specifically to pause proceedings into early 2024 so that discovery can be completed. However, the consumer is denied a stay of unspecified length based on an unresolved underlying state court case as the company is not party to it. Also, for its part, the company also never took the opportunity to depose the consumer’s expert witnesses even though it had knowledge of them, which is another reason for the pause in proceedings.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv73, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: insurance, experts, Discovery
J. Hurd denies an insurer’s motion to exclude two experts’ testimony seeking to rebut claims that a manufacturer’s exhaust fan was defective and was the source of a fire that damaged an insured’s apartment building. The court finds their testimony, which suggests the fire was resulted from wood placed near a heating source, is sufficiently based on reliable principles and methods. The court further grants the insurer’s motion to preclude the experts’ cumulative testimony.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hurd, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv1356, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: insurance, Product Liability, experts