Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog

EXPERTS RETAINED FOR PARTIES MEDIATING, AND FOR MEDIATOR.

     The Maryland Mediation Construction Law Deskbook has put forward a suggestion directed at the complexities of construction mediation.  An Expert can be used to assist the parties at the joint session, and an Expert can also be used to advise a party privately during caucuses or breakout sessions.  J. Snowden Stanley, Jr., Robert L. Wright & Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, "Mediation, Arbitration and Other ADR Techniques," published as Chapter 16 of the Maryland Construction Law Handbook (2012), published by the Maryland Institute for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers, Inc. © 2012 MSBA and © 2012 Thomson Reuters (subscription required).

     "An expert can also be used as a consultant to the mediator."  When the Mediator is not versed in the technical subject matter, "the solution may be for the parties to agree to hire an expert to advise the mediator or serve as a co-mediator."  Id.

     This suggestion is equally likely to be useful in Mediations involving complicated Insurance issues of Coverage or of Good Faith vs. Bad Faith.

 Mediation is a familiar subject particularly Mediation of Insurance issues.  The author is a Certified Florida Mediator for Appeals, Circuit Court litigation, and County Court cases.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.  

EXPERTS IN INSURANCE BAD FAITH CASES: TESTIMONY, REPORTS, DEADLINES.

     Experts in Insurance Bad Faith Cases are bound by the same rules, written and unwritten, that bind other Experts.  They will ultimately be expected to testify persuasively in Court.  An unpersuasive or worse yet, an Expert whose Trial Testimony seems to the Judge or the Jury as not based on reality, can be devastating to the party's own case.  See, e.g., Ocean View Towers Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2012 WL 882577 *2 (S.D. Fla. March 15, 2012), Download Ocean View Towers Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Order on Motion for New Trial Filed March 15, 2012) PUBLIC ACCESS, in which a Federal Judge denied a Plaintiff Condominium Association's Motion for New Trial in a breach of contract case against the Association's Insurance Company, after a Jury Verdict "finding no breach of contract" by the Insurance Company.  The Court in that case held that the "great weight of the evidence supports the jury's verdict" in favor of the Defendant Insurance Company, with the Court's main reason for that decision being the Trial Testimony of the "principal expert" of Policyholder Condominium Association.  The Expert "offered utterly incredible testimony concerning the amount [the Insurance Carrier] should have paid for [the Condominium Association's loss.  His varying estimates were all over the map, and he admitted on cross that he would say anything his client asked of him because '[t]hat's how I get paid.'...  This testimony was so bad that it prompted the Court to remark, outside the jury's presence, that 'I have been a Judge for a long time and I have heard a lot of witnesses and I must say that ... [the Expert in question] has to rate in the top [as] one of the worst witnesses as an expert I have ever heard.'"  OceanView Towers Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2012 WL 882577 *2 (S.D. Fla. March 15, 2012), Download Ocean View Towers Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Order on Motion for New Trial Filed March 15, 2012) PUBLIC ACCESS.

     Moreover, the Expert's Affidavit or sworn Report in the case should be the Expert's legally reliable foundation for admissible Testimony.  See, e.g., Sheffield Woods at Wellington Condo. Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2011 WL 7069785 *1 (M.D. Fla. March 7, 2011)(record made it "difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to give a reliable opinion regarding the amount of damage to the Property that occurred in any one or more specific past years or periods," granting motion to preclude testimony by Expert "regarding his opinions as to the specific dollar amount of damage that occurred during any one or more specific years or period."), Download Sheffield Woods at Wellington Condo. Assn v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.09cv1148, Order Filed March 7, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS; cf. Curatolo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2116459 *4 (N.D. Ohio May 27, 2011)(witness's summary of other people's recorded statements failed "to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement" for any affidavit), Download Curatolo v. Allstate Ins. Co. (N.D. Ohio No. 5.10CV607, Memorandum of Opinon and Order Filed May 27, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  The Federal Courts' online docket, PACER, reflects that an Order granting a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was filed in the Sheffield Woods case on April 4, 2011, and that the Curatolo case was similarly dismissed with prejudice based on a settlement agreement, on June 10, 2011.

     The content of any Expert's Reports including "supplemental" Reports will not generally be permitted to take the place of compliance with Report requirements in the first place.  If the Expert must render a Report which addresses certain subjects required by Court Order or Rule, then it must do so or the Expert runs the risk of not being allowed to testify.  E.g., Kendall Lakes Towers Condo. Ass'n v. Pacific Ins. Co., 2011 WL 6372198 *5 (S.D. Fla. December 20, 2011)(Goodman, U.S.M.J.; allowing Expert who produced a "supplemental" Report which did not meet certain deadlines and requirements to testify, but only if lengthy and detailed proscribed conditions were met first), Download Kendall Lakes Towers Condominium Assn v. Pacific Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10.24310, Order of USMJ Filed Dec. 20, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS; Tadehara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 4048782 *6 & n.1 (D. Colo. Sept. 12, 2011)(late-filed Policyholder's "expert report prepared by ... an attorney[-Expert]," and late-filed Insurance Company's expert report also prepared by an attorney-Expert, both appearing to contain impermissible legal conclusions, were not considered on issue of reasonableness of Defendant Insurance Company's conduct), Download Tadehara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Colo. No. 09.cv.02893, OpinIon and Order Filed Sept. 12, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  PACER, the online docket of the Federal Courts, reflects that a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice after a settlement was filed on or about March 6, 2012 and that an Order of Dismissal was entered the following day in the Kendall Lakes case.

     Of course, the Expert in an Insurance Case should abide by the deadlines established by Court Order or by Rule.  Otherwise, the Experts or their Reports may be stricken by a Court ruling.  See House of Clean, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2118633 *12-*13 (D. Mass. May 27, 2011)(motion to strike Plaintiff's Expert's "Third Expert Report" would be "allowed with respect to" the determination of the Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, which in turn was granted in part and denied in part; however, the Expert in question would be permitted to testify at Trial "on the condition that [the Plaintiff-Policyholder] makes [the Expert] available for a short, supplemental deposition at defendant's convenience and plaintiff's expense before [the Expert] testifies at trial."), Download House of Clean, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (D. Mass. No. 07.10839 Memorandum and Order Filed May 27, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  PACER records a settlement and an Order of Dismissal in the House of Clean case, on or about August 16, 2011.

     To summarize the rulings in these cases, the same rules, written as well as unwritten, bind Experts in Insurance Cases that bind Experts in other kinds of cases.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

FOURTEEN FOR THE EXPERTS: NEW INSURANCE CASES THAT MAKE EXPERT WITNESS LAW ....

.... Lucky Thirteenth.

    In a change-of-pace, Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog and Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog have been trading consecutive posts addressing a single common theme:  14 total Court rulings on Expert Witness Testimony and Reports in recent Insurance Cases.  For the previously developed rules of law and judicial decisions on these issues, see generally as to Liability Insurance Cases, volume 1 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 8:17 (West Publishing 3d ed. 2011; 2012 Supplement in process), and see generally as to all types of First-Party Insurance Cases, volume 2 id. § 12:18.

 

Hurricane Wilma Professional Engineer Expert Disallowed.*

*This same case was previously posted for other reasons on Insurance Claims and issues Web Log on March 7, 2012.

 

        In the case of Banta Properties, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co.,  2011 WL 7118542 (S.D. Fla. December 23, 2011), Download Banta Props, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10.61485, Order Granting Daubert Motion for Exclusion, Filed Dec. 23, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, the District Court disallowed a Plaintiff Property Management Company's proffered Expert.  The Expert in question is a Professional Engineer proffered to testify to Opinions "that Hurricane Wilma damaged windows and doors at Plaintiff's properties and as a result needed replacement."  Id. at *1.  The Defendant Insurance Company requested the Court to exclude her Expert Testimony on a number of different grounds.

        In pertinent part, the Professional Engineer Expert could not satisfactorily attribute the Plaintiffs' claimed Damages to their claimed cause, Hurricane Wilma, a crucial component of the Plaintiff's Coverage case.

       The Court "agrees that Mellinger was unable to attribute damage to Hurricane Wilma with any degree of certainty and that she used an unreliable methodology.  Therefore, the Court shall exclude her expert opinions."  Id. at *2.

        If an Expert is proffered on Damages in an Insurance Case, that Expert must ordinarily be prepared to testify to more than Opinions on the totality of Damages.  She should also be prepared and equipped to offer acceptable Opinion Testimony as to what caused those Damages, or suffer the risk of not being allowed to testify at all.

      Parenthetically, the exclusion of this Expert's Testimony does not appear to have harmed the Plaintiff''s case very much.  PACER, the online docket of the Federal Courts, reflects that the Jury returned a Verdict for the Plaintiff on January 30, 2012.  The Verdict includes the Jury's finding that $4,000,000.00 or $4 Million is the amount of the Plaintiff's covered Damages resulting from Hurricane Wilma.  On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment.

Part of a Series.  To be continued ....

Please Read The Disclaimer.

FOURTEEN FOR THE EXPERTS: EXPERTS IN 14 INSURANCE CASES ....

This case makes number 11.  Part of a continuing series.  The last post was on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on Tuesday, February 28, 2012.  For the previously developed rules of law and judicial decisions on these issues, see generally as to Liability Insurance Cases, volume 1 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 8:17 (West Publishing 3d ed. 2011; 2012 Supplement in process), and see generally as to all types of First-Party Insurance Cases, volume 2 id. § 12:18.

 

 

Totality of the Case:  Expert Can Testify Regarding Total Damages Only, Without Limitation to Any Part Thereof Which Might Actually be Covered by Insurance.

 

 

   In Sheffield Woods at Wellington Condominium Association, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 2011 WL 7069785 *1 (M.D. Fla. March 7, 2011), Download Sheffield Woods at Wellington Condo. Assn v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.09cv1148, Order Filed March 7, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, the Defendant Insurance Company argued that the Plaintiff Condominium Association "should be precluded from presenting expert testimony regarding the amount of damage to the Property," since the Plaintiff's experts could not tie the Damages down to a particular timeframe which would have fallen during the subject Policy Period.

 

The District Court disagreed with that position in this case.  The Plaintiff's Expert would not be precluded from testifying to Opinions about the total Damage incurred by the Plaintiff, even if, as the Court agreed, "that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to give a reliable opinion regarding the amount of damage to the Property that occurred in any one or more specific past years or periods".  Id.  PACER, the online docket of the Federal Courts, reveals that the parties filed a notice of settlement on March 10, 2011 and that the Court accordingly granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice on April 4, 2011.

 

Part of a continuing series.  To be continued ....

 

Please Read The Disclaimer. 

FOURTEEN FOR THE EXPERTS: NEW INSURANCE CASES THAT MAKE EXPERT WITNESS LAW ....

.... TWO MORE.

    In a change-of-pace, Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog and Insurance Claims  and Issues Weblog will carry consecutive posts addressing a single common theme:  Court rulings on Expert Witness Testimony and Reports in recent Insurance Cases.  For the previously developed rules of law and judicial decisions on these issues, see generally as to Liability Insurance Cases, volume 1 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 8:17 (West Publishing 3d ed. 2011; 2012 Supplement in process), and see generally as to all types of First-Party Insurance Cases, volume 2 id. § 12:18.

What Are "Impermissible Legal Conclusions," Exactly, to Which No Expert Witness Shall Ever be Allowed to Testify?

          In the case of Great American Insurance Co. v. Jefferson County Commission, 776 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Ala. 2010), Download Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Jefferson County Comm'n (N.D. Ala. Case No. 2.08cv01687, Memorandum Opinion Filed Nov. 15, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, a Federal Judge ruled in ways that outline answers to this question.  The Court allowed an Insurance Company's vice president to testify about a broker's responsibilities because the vice president's testimony did not "purport to define ... legal obligations."  For that announced reason, the Federal Judge overruled an objection that the vice president's testimony "amounts to expert testimony."  Id. at 1260.  [Emphasis added.]

              In Nevels v. Deerbrook Insurance Co., 2011 WL 6304066 (E.D. Ky. December 16, 2011), Download Nevels v. Deerbrook Ins. Co. (E.D. Ky. Case No. 10-83, Memorandum Opinion and Order Filed Dec. 16, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, an Attorney was not allowed to offer Expert Opinion Testimony to the extent it was based on legal conclusions, but the Court's ruling is somewhat obscured by its further rulings that in that particular case, the Attorney in question was not allowed to testify to Opinions based on an application of an incorrect standard of Kentucky Bad Faith Law in that Bad Faith case in Kentucky.  Id. at *3 (holding that Attorney "cannot offer an opinion on whether Deerbrook acted in bad faith because he has neither any expertise in nor a complete understanding of Kentucky bad faith law."); id. at *5 (ruling that Attorney "cannot opine on whether Deerbrook acted in bad faith because his testimony demonstrates that he does not understand Kentucky bad faith law.").

      Perhaps the clearest explication of the Court's ruling came at the beginning of the Court's Opinion in this case:  The Plaintiff retained the Attorney-Expert "as an expert in bad faith law and insurance claims handling.  Based on [the Attorney's] testimony at the Daubert hearing, he may opine on what Deerbrook Insurance Company's initial settlement offer to Nevels should have been, but he cannot take the next step and state that Deerbrook acted in bad faith.  This is because [the Attorney-Expert] does not sufficiently understand Kentucky bad faith law."  Id. at *1.

Part of a Series.  To be continued ....

Please Read The Disclaimer.

FOURTEEN FOR THE EXPERTS: NEW INSURANCE CASES THAT MAKE EXPERT WITNESS LAW ....

.... TWO MORE:  ELECTRONIC FILING, AUTHENTICATION, AND GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT.

    In a change-of-pace, Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog and Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog will carry consecutive posts addressing a single common theme:  Court rulings on Expert Witness Testimony and Reports in recent Insurance Cases.  For the previously developed rules of law and judicial decisions on these issues, see generally as to Liability Insurance Cases, volume 1 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 8:17 (West Publishing 3d ed. 2011; 2012 Supplement in process), and see generally as to all types of First-Party Insurance Cases, volume 2 id. § 12:18.

 Expert Witness Testimony:  Where Electronic Filing is Required, File Electronically; Authentication is Required in All Courts for All Exhibits.

   Where Exhibits to an Expert's Affidavit or Report are required to be electronically filed by Local Rule, but are not, the Exhibits may be stricken especially where they have not been authenticated.  References in reliance on those Exhibits in the Expert's Report and in pleadings are subject to being stricken as well upon the same grounds.  Such rulings came in an Insurance Case in which two Counts were alleged against the  Defendant Insurance Company:  Breach of the "individual disability income" Insurance Policy, and alleged breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, in Bonenfant v. Standard Insurance Co., 2011 WL 3904300 *3 (E.D. Cal. September 6, 2011), Download Bonenfant v. Standard Ins. Co. (E.D. Cal. Case No. CIV S.10.0361, Order Filed September 6, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  In this Order, the District Court granted the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff's Bad Faith Claim.  This Order, as noted, was entered on September 6, 2011.  The next day, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, according to PACER, the Online Docket for this Federal Court case.  At the end of that same month, on September 29, 2011, the Court entered a 'minute order' dismissing the entire case with prejudice, each side to bear its own attorney's fees and costs.

 

  Expert Witness Testimony May Provide a Jury Question on Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Coverage.

    Expert Testimony on Hurricane Ike Wind Damage, or not, provided a Jury Question on Bad Faith Denial (or not) of all Insurance Coverage under a "wind and hail" Commercial Insurance Policy, precluding Summary Judgment, in Beaumont Preservation Partners, LLC v. International Catastrophe Insurance Managers, LLC, 2011 WL 6707287 *12 (E.D. Tex. October 6, 2011)(Hawthorn, USMJ), Download Beaumont Preservation Ptrs., LLC v. International Cat. Ins. Mgrs., LLC (E.D. Tex. Case No. 1.10CV548, Report and Recco of USMJ Filed Oct. 6, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 6709920 (E.D. Tex. December 21, 2011), Download Beaumont Pres. Ptrs., LLC v. International Cat. Ins. Mgrs., LLC (E.D. Tex. Case No. 1.10CV548, Order of USDJ, Filed Dec. 21, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.

   The Expert who filed the Report in question is a lawyer "who is experienced in cases involving insurance disputes."  2011 WL 6702787 at *12.

Part of  a Series.  To be continued ....

Please Read The Disclaimer.

FOURTEEN FOR THE EXPERTS: 14 NEW INSURANCE CASES THAT MAKE EXPERT WITNESS LAW.

   In a change-of-pace, Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog and Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog will carry consecutive posts addressing a single common theme:  Court rulings on Expert Witness Testimony and Reports in recent Insurance Cases.  For the previously developed rules of law and judicial decisions on these issues, see generally as to Liability Insurance Cases, volume 1 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith § 8:17 (West Publishing 3d ed. 2011; 2012 Supplement in process), and see generally as to all types of First-Party Insurance Cases, volume 2 id. § 12:18.

 Expert Witnesses Generally Cannot Testify to Legal Conclusions Which Are Reserved For  The Court.

   For this reason, that an Expert Witness ordinarily cannot testify to legal conclusions which are reserved for the Court, a Title Insurance Lawyer was not allowed to testify to legal conclusions in Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., 2011 WL 4715174 *8 (E.D. Tex. October 5, 2011)(Mazzant, USMJ)(striking portions of Expert Report and of Expert's Affidavit accordingly), Download Fidelity Natl Title Ins Co v. Doubletree Ptrs, LP (E.D. Tex. Case No. 4.08CV00243, Memorandum Opinion and Order Filed Oct. 5, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  "Experts cannot offer testimony regarding what law governs a dispute or what the applicable law means, because that is a function of the Court."  Id. at *7.  Parenthetically, the Online Docket of this case reflects that Final Judgment was entered for the Defendant on November 10, 2011.

   Lawyers have been proferred as Expert Witnesses by Policyholders in some cases, and in some cases by Insurance Companies, and in some cases both by Policyholders and by Insurance Companies which was the case in Tadehara v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co., 2011 WL 4048782 *6 & n.7 (D. Colo. September 12, 2011)(competing Lawyer-Experts on reasonableness of Insurance Company's conduct under Colorado First-Party Undue Payment Delay Statute; case of first impression), Download Tadehara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (D. Colo. No. 09.cv.02893, OpinIon and Order Filed Sept. 12, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS.  Without determining admissibility, the Court held in this case that the competing Expert testimony contributed to a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.  Id.

 First in a Series.  To be continued ....

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

Hurricane Winds, Conflicting Expert Testimony, Bad Faith Jury Question.

   In Beaumont Preservation Partners, LLC v. International Catastrophe Insurance Managers, LLC, 2011 WL 6707287 *6-*9,  *9 (E.D. Tex. USMJ Report and Recommendations Filed October 6, 2011), Download Beaumont Preservation Ptrs., LLC v. International Catastrophe Insurance Mgrs., LLC (E.D. Tex. Report and Recco of USMJ Oct. 6, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Texas recommended, id. at *9, that the Federal District Judge rule that differing Expert Testimony on the existence and extent of Hurricane Ike Wind Damage, provides a Jury Question on Bad Faith Denial of a Commercial First-Party Property Claim.

   The Federal District Judge recently agreed with this recommendation and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report, in  2011 WL 6709920 (E.D. Tex. December 12, 2011, Order of U.S. District Judge Adopting Report and Recommendation of USMJ).

   In other words, the conflicting evidence available on the underlying claim for Coverage in this peculiar case made the Bad Faith Claim a Jury Issue in this case.

   This was one of many interesting rulings and recommendations in this Texas case.  Some will be posted further here and on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log.

    Please Read The Disclaimer.

FLORIDA EXPERTS AND STATUTORY BAD FAITH NOTICE "AMBIGUITY" ISSUE.

    A Federal Court in Florida has held that a Lawyer should be allowed to testify as an Expert Witness on the issue of whether a Notice of Intent to sue an Insured-Hospital was "ambiguous".  Download Ziolkowski v. Landmark American Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.09cv776, Order Filed August 24, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS,  also published as 2011 WL 37150580 *2 - *3 (M.D. Fla. August 24, 2011)(authorized password required to access Westlaw).  The Notice of Intent is required by a Florida Statute, which is not cited in the Court's opinion.  (It is worth noting, however, that the Plaintiff in this case is the Personal Representative of the Estate, which sued the Insured-Hospital under an agreement not to execute or what some Courts in Florida call a Coblentz agreement.  Id. at *2 n.2.)

    Florida's so-called Bad Faith Statute, F.S. § 624.155, similarly requires a Statutory Notice.  No person may sue under Section 624.155 without first providing the Insurance Company with a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation in compliance with the Statute.  The Statute requires that the Notice be stated "with specificity."  F.S. § 624.155(3)(b).  The intent behind this provision is to afford the Insurance Company with an opportunity to cure the violation alleged in the Notice.

    This statutory requirement is a condition precedent to suing under Section 624.155.  Courts in Florida are dismissing Bad Faith cases in which the required Civil Remedy Notice, "CRN," or "CRNI," is found by the Courts not to be sufficiently specific.  For example, a Civil Remedy Notice which set forth "'claim delay,' 'claim denial,' 'unfair trade practice,' and 'unsatisfactory settlement offer' without further elaboration" was held to be legally insufficient and could not withstand a Motion to Dismiss on that ground in a case of alleged Third-Party Bad Faith involving multiple claims and claimants.  The "recitations" which have just been quoted formed the bulk of the Civil Remedy Notice in that particular case, although other words were stated in the Notice.  "These uninformative recitations do not meet the requirements of § 624.155 because they do not specifically inform the insurer of the facts underlying the alleged violations or the corrective action that the insurer needed to take to remedy the alleged violations."  Download Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10cv20554, Order on Motion to Dismiss Filed August 13, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2010 WL 7367059 *4 (S.D. Fla. August 13, 2010)(decision just released on Westlaw; authorized password required to access Westlaw).

   In sum, the Federal Court held that the statutory condition precedent of Notice was not fulfilled and the statutory action must therefore be dismissed in that case:  "As indicated above, the Plaintiffs' civil remedy notice also falls short because it fails to inform the Defendant about how it can fix the alleged violations.  A proposed solution is not only required under the statute, but particularly necessary in this atypical case where the insurance claim consists of many third-party claims arising at different times that collectively far exceed the policy limits."  Id. at *5.

   No case has yet been found in which Expert Testimony has been proffered, let alone admitted, in a Bad Faith Case under Florida Statute Section 624.155 concerning whether a Civil Remedy Notice is "ambiguous" or whether it actually provides reasonable notice.  It may be only a matter of time until the first such case is reported.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

California Fire Coverage Exclusion, Summary Judgment on Good Faith.

   In Download Bishara v. Century Surety Co. (C.D. Cal. Case No. EDCV 09.01745, Order Filed April 6, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2011 WL 1334406 (C.D. Cal. April 6, 2011)(authorized password required to access Westlaw), three rulings in particular deserve to be highlighted.  This is a case in which the Insurance Company issued a Policy which provided Coverage for loss  by Fire, but in which the Insurance Company denied all Coverage under an Exclusion for loss or damage caused by or resulting from a dishonest or criminal act by or on behalf of the Insured, among other provisIons.

   The Federal Court applied California Law and granted the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment of Good Faith, holding in pertinent part:

1. The Court held that the Exclusion was properly applied by the Insurance Company to deny all Coverage, carefully pointing out that in doing so, "the Court does not opine or make any findings as to whether Swidan actually set fire to the Restaurant.  Rather, the Court finds only that the uncontroverted evidence satisfies Defendant's burden of demonstrating there is an absence of evidence establishing Defendant breached the Policy" by denying Plaintiff's Coverage Claim.  Bishara v. Century Surety Co., 2011 WL 1334406 at *9.
2. As there was no Coverage, there could be no Bad Faith in this case under California Law, the Federal Court concluded.  Id. at *10.
3. Even if there could be a legally cognizable Bad Faith Claim in this case, said the Federal Court, California law would still impel the grant of Summary Judgment to the Insurance Company because of the California "genuine dispute" rule.  In this case, the Insurance Company relied on the Report of an Expert as to the cause of the Fire Loss in question before the Insurance Company denied all Coverage for the Fire Loss.  Under the California "genuine dispute" rule, Coverage may be genuinely disputed on the basis of "'a single, thorough report by an independent expert'".  Id. at *11.  So it was in this case.

Please Read The Disclaimer. 

Bad Faith Expert Excluded, Bad Faith Not Determine Contract Breach.

   An Expert Witness who offered only Bad Faith Testimony was excluded from testifying in a solely Breach of Contract Case, in Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., Download Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10.21511, Omnibus Order of U.S.M.J. Goodman, Filed October 25, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS also published as 2010 WL 4179312 (S.D. Fla. October 25, 2010)(Goodman, U.S.M.J.), a case filed in May, 2010 that has already offered many opportunities for Insurance and Expert Witness rulings.

   The Magistrate Judge in this case involving Florida substantive law, applied the settled rule that "evidence of an insurance company's claims handling procedures is irrelevant to the determination of coverage and damages.  [Citations omitted.]  These procedures are only relevant to a claim of bad faith."  Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2010 WL 4179312 at *1.

   This case involved only a Breach of Contract Claim.  "Evidence pertaining to QBE's handling of the claim at issue, and indeed all other handling practices and claims, is irrelevant."  Id. at *2.

   For these reasons, the Court in this case also granted the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion in Limine in this regard, to Prevent Plaintiff from Presenting Any Evidence or Testimony Regarding Alleged Bad Faith, Lack of Good Faith or Improper Claims Handling or Claim Practices of QBE or Its Representatives with Regard to this Claim ....  See id. at *1, *3 & n.1.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  

Cumulative Expert Testimony Accumulates AT Trial, NOT Before, Magistrate Holds.

   A United States Magistrate Judge has held that it is really most appropriate to object to an opposing party's Expert Witness Testimony as "cumulative," when that Testimony is introduced at Trial.  Before Trial, it is not really cumulative because it has not happened yet and the United States District Judge may make her or his own ruling at Trial when the Testimony is introduced.  See Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., Download Royal Bahamian Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10.21511.CIV, Order Filed October 21, 2010))PUBLIC ACCESS; Magistrate Judge's Preliminary Order on Motion in Limine to Exclude And/Or Limit Cumulative Expert Testimony), also published as 2010 WL 4225947 *1-*3 (S.D. Fla. October 21, 2010)(Goodman, U.S.M.J.; case involved Coverage Claims for Hurricane Wilma Damage), in which the Magistrate Judge cited several Bad Faith Cases in explaining the operation of the "Cumulative Expert Testimony" objection in Federal Court.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

"Hired" Expert 50 or 60 Times Not Enough ...

... to Demonstrate Bad Faith Bias, Court Rules.

  The holding in the following case deserves a lot of emphasis.

   Worth Bargain Outlet, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., Download Worth Bargain Outlet, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co. (S.D. Cal. Case No. 09.cv.839, Order Filed July 21, 2010) FREE ACCESS OFFICIAL REPORT also published as 2010 WL 2898264 *11 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw), is a case which involved alleged First-Party Bad Faith.  In Worth Bargain Outlet,  a Plaintiff-Policyholder which suffered a fire loss argued that one of the grounds for its alleged Bad Faith Claims was that the Defendant Insurance Company "'dishonestly selected its experts' and those 'experts were unreasonable' in their investigation of Plaintiff's claim."  The one and "only argument Plaintiff puts forth to suggest a biased investigation is the fact that [Defendant's Expert] was hired 20 times by Defendant before Plaintiff's claim, and 30 to 40 times since."  [Emphasis added.]  The Worth Bargain Outlet Court held that this was not enough by itself either to show bias or to demonstrate a basis for a First-Party Bad Faith Claim.  Worth Bargain Outlet, 2010 WL 2898264 at *11.

   The Online Docket of this Federal Case on Pacer reflects a Notice of Settlement, filed on August 20, 2010.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Money, Money Everywhere, And Not a Drop for Independent Research.

   "Independent research is being squeezed by federal agencies on one side and BP on the other."  Dr. Harriet M. Perry, Gulf Coast Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Mississippi, quoted by Shaila Dewan, New York Times, Monday, September 13, 2010.

   Government agencies and BP have used all the money currently available for research either to investigate the causes of the Oil Rig Explosion and the Oil Spill, or to build up BP's legal defense against resulting Claims.  See Shaila Dewan, "The Spill's Money Squeeze/Scientists Say Lack of Cash is Hindering Research on Environmental Impact" p. A19, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Monday, September 13, 2010).  The effect is to concentrate the power to hire and pay for most if not all of the research on those subjects, in the hands of a few Government Agencies and BP:

   The only federal agency to distribute any significant grant money for oil spill research, the National Science Foundation, is out of money until the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1.  The Environmental Protection Agency, which has only $2 million to give out, is still gearing up its program.  A $500 million initiative for independent research promised by BP, which was to be awarded by an international panel of scientists, has become mired in a political fight over control.  State agencies, too, are stymied.

Id.  The researchers frozen out include scientists at the University of South Florida and at Louisiana State University.  But not those hired by BP.  Id.

   Whether and when Claimants, Potentially Responsible Parties, potential Defendants and their Insurance Companies (aside from BP and presumably, BP's Insurers), and anyone other than Government Agencies and BP will have access to reliable scientific research into the causes and effects of the Gulf Coast Oil Catastrophe, remains to be seen.

  The Insurance Questions including Business Interruption Coverage Issues posed by the Gulf Coast Oil Catastrophe, have largely been experienced before, in general terms.  They have generally been addressed by many Courts, in many decided Cases including past cases involving Catastrophe Claims.  Dennis Wall is Co-Author of the leading book on Insurance Coverage for Catastrophe Claims, "CATClaims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (West Publishing Company 2008; 2010 Supplement in process).  Mr. Wall will be a featured speaker on several panels which will address the BP Oil Spill Catastrophe, and other Catastrophes which have recently given rise to Damages Claims and Insurance Claims.  On September 15, 2010, he will be a featured speaker on a panel addressing "BP Oil Spill Damages Claims:  The Coverage Predicates" at the September 15, 2010 Seminar of the Insurance Law Committee sponsored by the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando, Florida.   Mr. Wall will speak on a panel at the American Conference Institute's Bad Faith Litigation Conference in Orlando, Florida on November 30, 2010 on "Dealing With Catastrophic Disasters:  How to Properly Investigate and Handle Overwhelming Claims".  The American Conference Institute is offering a discount to readers of this Blog:  Download ACI Advises Readers of the Insurance Claims and Issues and Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog are entitled to a discount.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Expert Witnesses Allowed, Barred in Insurance DJ Over "Catastrophic Failure".

   The City of Chicago filed a Federal Declaratory Judgment Action against Westchester Insurance Company claiming Coverage for a "catastrophic failure" of an uninterruptible power supply ("UPS") which allegedly caused the City's entire 911 system to fail, in City of Chicago v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., Download City of Chicago v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. (N.D. Ill. Case No. 08C5535, Opinion and Order Filed September 1, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS also published as 2010 WL 3516066 (N.D. Ill. September 1, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw).

   In an illuminating Opinion that prefigures the same or similar Expert Witness issues in Insurance Cases yet to come involving Catastrophic Claims, the Federal Court denied Westchester Fire's motion to bar the Expert Witness Testimony of two witnesses as based on an incorrect methodology and as "speculative".  The Court held with respect to both Experts that their methodology was acceptable under Federal Expert Witness standards, and that their Reported Testimony and Opinions were not "speculative".  City of Chicago v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2010 WL 3516066 at *7-*8.  One of these two Experts noted in his Report that the UPS system experienced a "catastrophic failure".  Id. at *7.  The Court noted in particular that this Declaratory Judgment Action will proceed to a Bench Trial.  Id. at *7.

   The City of Chicago also filed a Motion to Disqualify an Expert Witness in that case.  The City's Motion was granted in part as to Westchester Fire's Expert's proferred Opinions "related to the replacement of the UPS" because the Expert in question was simply not qualified "to testify about the City's decisionmaking process" regarding replacement of the UPS.  Id. at *6.  On the other hand, the City's Motion to Disqualify was denied regarding the proferred Testimony of this same Expert "as to his opinion that the City's temporary power system was a disproportionate response to the incident."  Id.

   These and similar issues as to the reception or rejection of various Expert Witness Opinion Testimony will arise again, in Insurance Cases pending and yet to be filed as a result of many Catastrophe Claims resulting from the Gulf Oil Explosion Disaster, and from other Catastrophes as well.

  The Insurance Questions including Business Interruption Coverage Issues have largely been experienced before, and they have in general terms been addressed by many Courts, in many decided Cases.  Dennis Wall is Co-Author of the leading book on Insurance Coverage for Catastrophe Claims, "CATClaims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (West Publishing Company 2008; 2010 Supplement in process).  Mr. Wall will be a featured speaker on several panels which will address the BP Oil Spill Catastrophe.  On September 15, 2010, he will be a featured speaker on a panel addressing "BP Oil Spill Damages Claims:  The Coverage Predicates" at the September 15, 2010 Seminar of the Insurance Law Committee sponsored by the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando, Florida.   Mr. Wall will speak on a panel at the American Conference Institute's Bad Faith Litigation Conference in Orlando, Florida on November 30, 2010 on "Dealing With Catastrophic Disasters:  How to Properly Investigate and Handle Overwhelming Claims".  The American Conference Institute is offering a discount to readers of this Blog:  Download ACI Advises Readers of the Insurance Claims and Issues and Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog are entitled to a discount.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

First-Party Statutory Bad Faith Claim, and No Preemption: Court.

   Two holdings are of importance in the recent decision in the Federal Case of Cieplinski v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Download Cieplinski v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. (M.D. Pa. Case No. 3.10.CV.1093, Memorandum Opinion Filed July 26, 2010) FREE ACCESS OFFICIAL REPORT also published as 2010 WL 2926846 (M.D. Pa. July 26, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw):

   1.  The Plaintiff stated "a cause of action" for Statutory Bad Faith under 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 8371 where she based her Claim on allegations that the Defendant Insurance Company refused to pay her medical claims for chiropractor bills because of allegedly biased peer review.  "Plaintiff has alleged that State Farm denied her first party medical benefits by using the same peer reviewer on multiple occasions and in the face of Plaintiff's treating chiropractor's recommendations that she treat two (2) or three (3) times per month for the rest of her life....  As such, Plaintiff has properly alleged a cause of action for bad faith pursuant to" the Pennsylvania Statute.  The Federal Court denied State Farm's Motion to Dismiss this Claim accordingly.  Cieplinski, 2010 WL 2926846 at *3.  [Emphasis added.]  (Compare the emphasized language from the Cieplinski holding in this regard, with Worth Bargain Outlet, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., Download Worth Bargain Outlet, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co. (S.D. Cal. Case No. 09.cv.839, Order Filed July 21, 2010) FREE ACCESS OFFICIAL REPORT also published as 2010 WL 2898264 *11 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw), also a case of alleged First-Party Bad Faith.  In Worth Bargain Outlet,  a Plaintiff-Policyholder which suffered a fire loss argued that one of the grounds for its alleged Bad Faith Claims was that the Defendant Insurance Company "'dishonestly selected its experts' and those 'experts were unreasonable' in their investigation of Plaintiff's claim."  The one and "only argument Plaintiff puts forth to suggest a biased investigation is the fact that [Defendant's Expert] was hired 20 times by Defendant before Plaintiff's claim, and 30 to 40 times since."  [Emphasis added.]  The Worth Bargain Outlet Court held that this was not enough by itself either to show bias or to demonstrate a basis for a First-Party Bad Faith Claim.  Worth Bargain Outlet, 2010 WL 2898264 at *11.)

   2.   Of particular interest to practitioners in Pennsylvania, the Federal Court in Cieplinski revisited one of its own previous decisions and held that a First-Party Statutory Bad Faith Cause of Action under 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 8371 is not entirely preempted by the strictures of 75 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1797.   In the Cieplinski case, as a result, the Plaintiff-Policyholder was allowed to proceed on her Section 8371 claim where she alleged "that State Farm has abused the peer review process by hiring a peer reviewer that it knew had previously provided negative reports regarding Plaintiff's treatment."  Cieplinski, 2010 WL 2926846 at *3.  "Thus, Plaintiff's bad faith claim survives only to the extent that she is alleging that State Farm abused the peer review process by hiring a peer reviewer that would give a biased determination."  Id.  The Plaintiff would not, however, be allowed to proceed with a Section 8371 Claim to the extent that she based her Claim "on failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, evaluate coverage, or promptly notify her of a denial of first party benefits," which are preempted by Section 1797.  Id.

Timely Investigation and Evaluation plays a major role in preventing and litigating First-Party Bad Faith Claims, and they are both addressed in particular in § 9:7, Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill First Edition; West Publishing Company Second Edition and 2010 Supplement).  Preemption of First-Party Bad Faith Claims, whether Statutory or filed at Common Law, are addressed in particular in § 9:16, id.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  

POSTSCRIPT OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2010:  PACER, the Online Docket of the Federal Courts, reflects that a Notice of Settlement was filed in the Worth Bargain Outlet Case in the Southern District of California, on August 20, 2010.

Of "Percipient Fact" Federal Witnesses & Iowa Bad Faith Insurance Experts.

   In an Order that comes with its own Table of Contents, a Federal Judge in Iowa reached two decisions of significance.  First, the Court applied the Federal Rules of Evidence and concluded that a witness who testifies "regarding the information contained" in a Policyholder's Business Interruption Claim "submissions" is a "percipient fact witness" and therefore does not need to be disclosed as an Expert Expected to Testify at Trial.  Penford Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., Download Penford Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (N.D. Iowa Case No. 09.13, Opinion Filed June 17, 2010) also published as 2010 WL 2509985 *1 (N.D. Iowa June 17, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw).  (Unsure what a "percipient fact witness" might be, exactly?  Apparently it is a fact witness who perceives information about which she or he can testify without being an Expert Witness under the Federal Rules.)

    Second, the Federal Judge applied Iowa substantive law in this Bad Faith case to hold that Expert Witnesses would be allowed to offer Opinion Testimony about Bad Faith not only "with regard to coverage, but also with respect to the timing of Defendants' payments on amounts undisputedly due under the policy."  Penford Corporation, 2010 WL 2509985 at *3-*4.  See generally Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" §§ 9:25 and 9:26, "Insurer's Payment of Undisputed Covered Amounts" (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill First Edition; West Publishing Company Second Edition and 2010 Supplement).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

Enlargement of Time Good Faith Request for Expert Report Granted.

   In Catalano v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Download Catalano v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 2.08cv667, Opinion of United States Magistrate Judge Filed May 25, 2010) also published as 2010 WL 2103460 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw)(not an Insurance case), a United States Magistrate Judge granted a request for enlargement of time to file a so-called supplemental Expert Report.  The deadline in that case to disclose Expert Reports was April 1, 2010.  The requested enlargement of time was filed after that date.  The Expert Report was apparently available at the deadline for disclosure of Expert Reports, and the moving party's Counsel demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that the nondisclosure was "inadvertent" and unintentional.

   Trial is not set to take place until the case is reached on a docket that starts on January 3, 2011.  In that case, the Magistrate Judge deemed the request for enlargement in Good Faith and it would not cause prejudice to the nonmoving party.  Catalano, 2010 WL 2103460 at *1.

   For good measure, the Magistrate Judge allowed "sixty (60) days for the Defendant to review the supplemental expert report and conduct any discovery necessary, and to file a rebuttal expert [report] if deemed appropriate."  Id. at *2.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Property Insurance Claims Handling Issues for Expert Witnesses.

   I have been fortunate in having two articles released for publication at the same time.  I am already making one of them available to you, on another site, and with this post I am making the other article available to you as well, "Expert Witnesses on the Handling of Property Insurance Claims," published in the April, 2010 issue of The Briefs.  Here is your copy:  Download Expert Witnesses on the Handling of Property Insurance Claims.OCBA Briefs.0410.  (Copyright Dennis J. Wall 2010.  All rights reserved.  No Reproduction or any other use of this material may be made for commercial purposes.)

   I hope that you will find this to be useful and productive.

You may also be interested in the posts on this subject on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log.  Please Read The Disclaimer.

Lawyer-Expert's Legal Conclusions, Understanding of Bad Faith Law Attacked: ...

    **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.**   

   ... No Such Opinions Allowed by Federal Court in Bad Faith Case Under Florida Law.

   A lawyer-Expert Witness was proffered to testify to what the Federal Court listed as six (6) Opinions on issues in a relatively new decision 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., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009)(subscription required to access Westlaw).  The Policyholder-Plaintiff in that Bad Faith Case under Florida Law filed a motion to exclude these Opinions as "legal conclusions" and because allegedly "they are based on an incorrect understanding of the law," in pertinent part.

   The lawyer-Expert was allowed to testify to two (2) of his 6 Opinions.  For ease of reference, the four Opinions identified by the Court as impermissible legal conclusions in that Insurer Bad Faith Case are italicized in the following list taken straight from the Court's Opinion:

(1) that [the Excess UM Carrier-Defendant] did not violate Florida Statute § 624.155 [Florida's so-called Bad Faith Statute];

(2) that an insurer does not have a duty to pay a claim until there has been a determination [by the insurance company] of coverage and damages;

(3) that [the Policyholder-Plaintiff's] amended complaint should be dismissed;

(4) that [the Policyholder-Plaintiff's] Civil Remedy Notice was premature;

(5) that [the Excess UM Carrier-Defendant] acted in good faith when it paid the $5 million policy limits; and

(6) that [the Carrier-Defendant's] failure to pay the policy limits within sixty days after [the Policyholder-Plaintiff] filed the Civil Remedy Notice was not bad faith and did not violate Florida Statute § 624.155.

Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009).  [Italics added as noted; 16-pitch material added to reflect the Court's ruling to edit and thus render this particular  Opinion permissible and not a legal conclusion.]

Please Read The Disclaimer. 

 

Good Faith Insurance Experts' Opinions Allowed in Federal Case.

   **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.

"Motive and State of POLICYHOLDER'S ATTORNEY'S Mind" Relevant ...

     **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.**   

   ... TO CLAIM OF ALLEGED BAD FAITH IN SETTLEMENT "ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS REALLY A REALISTIC POSSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT."  Download Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Opinion Filed November 5, 2009), also published as Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009).

   After repeating this holding that was reached in previous cases decided under Florida Insurer Bad Faith Law, the Court noted its agreement "that such evidence is relevant and would not be pure speculation".  Nonetheless, the Court also advised the parties that it preferred to wait until the actual Trial, at which time specific objections could be made and ruled upon.  The Court in this case accordingly denied the Policyholder's motion to exclude the Opinion Testimony of Expert Witnesses regarding motives or state of mind, in which the Policyholder announced his anticipation that the defendant insurance company "will attempt to introduce expert testimony regarding the motives of his counsel".  Kearney v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2009 WL 3712343 *3 (M.D. Fla. November 5, 2009).  [Emphasis added.]

There is an interesting post on Insurance Claims and Issues Web Log on March 25, 2010 which addresses Expert Witnesses in Insurance Cases.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

 

Expert Witness Testimony in Insurance Case in Federal Court.

   A Policyholder's Meteorologist Expert "shall be limited to his expertise as a meteorologist," it was held in Download King Cole Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Opinion Filed December 2, 2009), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 3.  This is the full holding of the Federal Court in this regard:

Defendant specifically wants to preclude testimony by Mr. Branscome regarding damages to the building resulting from Hurricane Wilma or that Hurricane Wilma was a costly hurricane.  The Court finds that Dr. Branscome may not testify regarding damages resulting from Hurricane Wilma.  Dr. Branscome's testimony shall be limited to his expertise as a meteorologist.

Download King Cole Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Opinion Filed December 2, 2009), at 3.  [Emphasis added.]

   More recently, in another ruling in the same case, the Plaintiff Policyholder's roofing contractor Expert Witness "should be precluded from testifying regarding meteorological conditions or data."  Download King Cole Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp. (S.D. Fla. Opinion Filed January 5, 2010), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 6.  [Emphasis added.]

Evidentiary and Discovery issues addressed by the Courts concerning Expert Witness Testimony in Insurance Cases are addressed by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" § 8:17 (Third-Party Cases) and § 12:18 (First-Party Cases) (Second Edition Shepard's/McGraw-Hill; 2009 Supplement West Publishing Company), including issues arising in general in Insurance Cases in which Dennis Wall is frequently retained to provide Expert Witness Services.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Over-Discovery From Expert Witness Vacated in Bad Faith Case.

   "This case presents issues of first impression regarding the proper scope of discovery into an expert witness's purported bias."  Download American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Larry Grant (Ariz. Ct. App., Div. One, Opinion Filed October 8, 2009), attached official Slipsheet Opinion Paragraph 1.  In that case, a Policyholder-Insured sued her UM/UIM Carrier for breach of contract and alleged Bad Faith.  She caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued on the Defendant Insurance Company's physician-Expert Witness.  She also claimed that the doctor was biased in favor of the Insurance Company and against her.  The subpoena served upon the Expert Witness in that case demanded that the doctor "produce extensive documentation."  Download American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Larry Grant (Ariz. Ct. App., Div. One, Opinion Filed October 8, 2009), Paragraph 6.

The "extensive documentation" was ordered by the Trial Court.  It included financial information and other documentation that went far beyond the discovery and reporting requirements imposed on Expert Witnesses under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

   In addition, the Expert Witness in that case acknowledged that he was subject to being deposed, that he would be filing a Report, and that in short he had to meet the discovery and reporting burdens imposed on Experts under the  Rules of Civil Procedure.  Nothing in the record indicated that the Expert was reluctant to meet or resistant to these burdens.  Download American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Larry Grant (Ariz. Ct. App., Div. One, Opinion Filed October 8, 2009), Paragraph 27.

   The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the Trial Court's Order compelling the subpoenaed production from this Witness, and remanded after stating this holding:

   We vacate the challenged portions of the superior court's discovery order and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including an assessment of whether Allo [the Policyholder-insured] has explored less intrusive discovery and, if so, whether she can demonstrate good cause for more expanded inquiries.  The [trial] court shall also impose a more reasonable time frame for any disclosures ordered on remand.

Download American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hon. Larry Grant (Ariz. Ct. App., Div. One, Opinion Filed October 8, 2009), Paragraph 30.

Expert Witnesses in Insurance Cases are examined in Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" (Second Edition Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, 2009 Supplement West Publishing Company), particularly §§ 8:17, 9:6, and 12:18 among many others.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses and Absolute Immunity From Damages Liability.

   In at least some cases, Good Faith or Bad Faith of Expert Witnesses is not a required inquiry.  In particular, "court-appointed experts ... are absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court's direction.  [Citations omitted.]  They are arms of the court, much like special masters, and deserve protection from harassment by disappointed litigants, just as judges do."  Download Cooney v. Rossiter (7th Cir. Opinion Filed September 30, 2009), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 4.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Expert Witnesses on Bad Faith, Punitive Damages.

   Expert Witnesses on Bad Faith were part of the Policyholder's Proof that did not convince the Court in Download WMS Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (S.D. Miss. Opinion Filed August 4, 2009).

   The Court found in that First-Party Bad Faith Case brought under Mississippi substantive law, that the Policyholder "failed to establish that Federal, or its agents acted willfully, maliciously, or with reckless disregard" for the Policyholder's rights.  Accordingly, the Court did not assess Bad Faith Punitive Damages under Mississippi Insurance Law.  Download WMS Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (S.D. Miss. Opinion Filed August 4, 2009), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 20-21.

    With regard to the Policyholder's "two bad faith experts" in particular, the Federal Judge in that case wrote that "[t]he Court ruled on the motion to exclude [one of them] on the record."  A review of the entire online Docket of this case failed to reveal any ruling on the motion to exclude that Expert Witness.  Perhaps the ruling was made "on the record" at Trial and is thus contained instead in the Trial Transcript.  Presumably, the "motion to exclude" was granted, because the Court did not refer to any testimony given by that Expert.

    As to the other of the "two bad faith experts," the Court ruled on "the outstanding motion to exclude [that Expert, holding that] the Court's conclusion regarding bad faith renders that motion moot.  The Court as the finder of fact was not persuaded by his testimony."  Download WMS Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (S.D. Miss. Opinion Filed August 4, 2009), at 20-21 n.15.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Evidence, Experts Show Prohibited Practices in Insurance Business, Bad Faith.

    A recent Federal Court Trial resulted in a Jury award of $48,414.97 on the Policyholders' Breach of Contract Claim, an award of $1,150,000.00 on their First-Party Bad Faith Claim, and an assessment of $1,150,000.00 in Punitive Damages on their Bad Faith Claim, in Download Moore v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir. Opinion Filed August 14, 2009), attached Official Slipsheet Opinion at 1-2.

    The Insurance Company Defendant in that case defended on the bases of Arson and Fairly Debatable Defenses, in pertinent part.  (Actually, the Defendant in that case argued that the evidence on the First-Party Bad Faith Claim in that case reflected that it did not deny or disclaim all Coverage without a Fairly Debatable reason, under North Dakota law.)  In affirming in all respects, the Eighth Circuit's Opinion is interesting in a couple of respects.

    The Eighth Circuit held that although in that case an issue of potential error had not been preserved concerning a Jury Instruction based on the North Dakota Prohibited Practices in Insurance Business Act, nonetheless there apparently would not have been a good basis to find reversible error based on the Instruction anyway.  Among other things, the Defendant Insurance Company asked its own Expert Witness at Trial about its supposed violations of that statute.  The Appellate Court held:  "At a minimum, we believe that evidence that an insurer's conduct violates a statute prohibiting unfair or settlement practices is relevant to whether the insurer acted in bad faith."  Download Moore v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir. Opinion Filed August 14, 2009), at 5.   

    The one-to-one ratio of Punitive Damages to Compensatory Damages on the Bad Faith Claim was held to be well within the parameters of the United States Constitution, the Eighth Circuit also held.  Download Moore v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir. Opinion Filed August 14, 2009), at 11-13.  The Punitive Damages assessment was also simply not "excessive" under North Dakota law.  Download Moore v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir. Opinion Filed August 14, 2009), at 13-14.

On the Fairly or Reasonably Debatable element or Defense in First-Party Bad Faith Claims, see also Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith  § 11:17 (Second Edition Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, 2009 Supplement in process West Publishing), and on its recent appearance in Third-Party Bad Faith Cases see  §  5:51.  Regarding Punitive Damages assessments in any Bad Faith Case, see § 13:15.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Expert Witnesses Testifying on Reasonable Conduct, Other Financial/Law Issues.

    Do you pay your Expert Witnesses $1,000 an hour?  Summaries in the newspapers of recent studies reflect that Expert Witnesses often charge that much.  Here is a handy link here.  This report uses many of the studies as resources.

    It is interesting that in 1 out of 3 lawsuits, Expert Witnesses testify at Trial in Federal Court about the "reasonableness of a party's actions" and other "business/law/financial" issues, as reported by studies of Federal Civil Trials and surveys of Federal Trial Judges across the nation.  More such issues are likely to be presented as the financial crisis deepens.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Attorneys at Issue in Bad Faith Cases.

     The past two years have seen two new cases that have shaken Florida Insurance Law.  Neither case has been cited by other Courts -- yet.  This is the time to tell you about them.

     In Barry v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 938 So. 2d 613, 615-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(subscription required), an Attorney-Expert Witness testified to opinions that GEICO did not act in Bad Faith when it failed to settle the claim in that case, that the injured claimant "made it clear that she was not intending to settle", and that the actions of the Plaintiff and her Counsel "were inconsistent with a willingness to settle."  Here is the official Opinion released by the Florida Appellate Court.  The quoted summary of the Attorney-Expert's testimony appears on page 3 of the attached; see also pp. 5-7:  Download Barry_v. GEICO General Insurance Co. (Fla. 4th DCA Case No. 4D05.206 Opinion Filed Oct. 4, 2006).pdf.

     The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has expanded Barry's holding.  The District Court denied Plaintiffs' motions "to exclude evidence, argument, and references regarding the motives or conduct" of the claimants' attorney and the attorney's paralegal.  The Federal Court held in yet another Florida Bad Faith failure-to-settle case "that evidence and argument regarding the motives or conduct" of the claimants' attorney and the attorney's paralegal "is relevant and should not be prohibited."  Mendez v. Unitrin Direct Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2007 WL 2696795 *3-*4 (M.D. Fla. Opinion Filed Sept. 12, 2007)(subscription required).  Here is the Middle District's official Opinion.  Its quoted holding will be found on pages 5-6 of the attached:  Download Mendez_v. Unitrin Direct Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8.06.CV.563, Opinion Filed Sept. 12, 2007).pdf.  The Mendez case has an interesting further history.  The case went to Trial which resulted in a Judgment for the Plaintiffs.  Thereafter, the Court's Online Docket shows that the case was settled.  The Federal lawsuit was then dismissed without prejudice in February, 2008.

     As I wrote at the beginning, Barry and Mendez have not been cited by other Courts as yet.  The only case known to include a cite to Barry is Mendez.  No known Court has cited to Mendez -- yet.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Bad Faith Expert Not Reimbursable in Sixth Circuit, Court Holds.

      Acuity Insurance wanted to be reimbursed for the money it paid to its Expert Witness to defend a Bad Faith Claim in Federal Court.  "This amount included charges for telephone calls, document review, drafting the expert report, preparing for the deposition, and time spent during the actual deposition."  In a recently reported decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said absolutely not.  L and W Supply_Corp. v. Acuity (6th Cir. Case No. 05.6845, Opinion Filed Jan. 23, 2007).pdf.  This is a link to the publicly available official web site.  Access to this reported decision is also available by subscription for example to Westlaw, or 475 F.3d 737.

      The Sixth Circuit applied settled Federal law.  "Prevailing parties may recover certain allowable, reasonable, and necessary costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).  The prevailing party may recover fees for witnesses under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3).  Available witness expenses only include attendance, travel, and subsistence fees as specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1821."  First paragraph in Section III of official Sixth Circuit opinion; 475 F.3d at 738.

     "[W]e hold that expert witness fees may not be taxed as costs at a court's discretion under Rule 54(d) because § 1920 does not provide for them.  Therefore, Acuity is not entitled to recover expert witness fees (i.e., the hourly rate charged for the expert's time and services).  It is, however, entitled as a matter of course to recover the witness costs provided for in § 1821, which are largely compensatory in nature."  Final paragraph of Section III of the Sixth Circuit's official opinion; 475 F.3d at 741.

     Careful attention should be paid to the bases for the Sixth Circuit's holding and the bases on which the Insurance Company requested reimbursement for its Expert Witness' hourly rate charges in this case.

Please Read The Disclaimer.