A trial judge's expert testimony was excluded in Columbia Cas. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., C.A. No. 15-197 WES, 2019 WL 2176306 (D.R.I. May 20, 2019). The retired judge's expert testimony was proffered on the issue of whether a liability insurance company negotiated in bad faith during settlement negotiations in the underlying case.
The federal judge presiding in this case excluded the retired judge's expert testimony. To be fair, the federal judge's reasoning would have excluded all expert testimony on the subject of a civil litigant's reasonable expectations as the federal judge framed the issue, because testimony on that issue was "irrelevant," least of all "because the average civil litigant is a party representing his own interests, not a fiduciary representing the interests of another." Columbia Casualty, 2019 WL 2176306, at *5.
If the retired judge had framed his expert testimony in different terms unique to insurer bad faith claims, it might have been relevant and so admissible in the eyes of the federal judge:
Had [the retired judge] cabined his opinion to address his experience with insurance contracts and settlement negotiations of insurance claims specifically, or presented “standards of settlement practice” that were tailored to the unique fiduciary duties imposed upon insurance companies, his opinion may have had more relevance.
Columbia Casualty, 2019 WL 2176306, at *5.
The issues matter. Framing the issues matters. More to the point of this case, framing the issues for expert testimony before an expert is even asked to address those issues, matters.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments