**Author's Note: If you have reached this blog through a list that carries advertising, your computer may or may not be put at risk either through the list or through the advertising. I do not accept or authorize any commercial advertising of any kind on any list or post. Placing commercial advertisements with or near any of my web log posts is prohibited. Further, I do not recommend any products or services advertised with or near any of my posts or any list of my posts.**
In Download Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Opinion Filed November 5, 2009), also published as Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3712343 *10 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009)(subscription required to access Westlaw), the Court summarized its holding on the admissibility of Expert Witness Opinion Testimony in Good Faith-Bad Faith Insurance Cases. The following summary came in the course of denying a Defendant Excess UM Insurance Company's motion to exclude such testimony by the Plaintiff-Policyholder's Experts, but the Court's summary of its holdings applies equally to Experts proffered by Insurance Company Defendants:
This case involves the issue of whether [the Defendant-UM Excess Carrier] acted in bad faith in its handling of [its Policyholder's] claim. While the Court agrees that [the Policyholder's] experts cannot testify that [the Defendant-UM Excess Carrier] "acted in bad faith," as that would be an inadmissable [sic] legal conclusion, the experts may give their opinion regarding what ordinary and reasonable claims handling practices consist of and whether or not [the Defendant-UM Excess Carrier] complied with those standards.
[Emphasis added.]
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments