A Federal Court held that proposed Expert testimony from a lawyer that does nothing more than tell the Court how to rule on Insurance Coverage is inadmissible. American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, LLC, Download American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C. (S.D. Tex. Case No. H.08.03692, Opinion Filed June 9, 2010) also published as 2010 WL 2331395 (S.D. Tex. June 9, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to accesss Westlaw). In this same decision, the Federal Court ruled in favor of American Home's position on the merits and the Pacer Online Docket of this case reflects that on June 28, 2010 American Home filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Final Judgment in its favor. American Home achieved this result apparently despite the fact that one of its Experts was held to offer no admissible testimony in this case.
In the American Home Assurance Company case, a lawyer retained as an Expert Witness by American Home, filed a "Rule 26 report" which "primarily addresses how this court should interpret the insurance policies." American Home, 2010 WL 2331395 at *8. The Court in this case held that this was not admissible testimony.
Following rules accepted throughout jurisdictions in the United States, the Federal Court held:
To the extent Martin's report addresses contract interpretation, it is inadmissible. Expert testimony on the proper interpretation of contract terms may be admissible when the meaning depends on trade or industry practice. [Citations omitted.] But such expert testimony is admissible only if the contract language is ambiguous or involves a specialized term of art, science, or trade. [Citations omitted.] In the present case, no party argues that the relevant policy terms are ambiguous. The specialized insurance terms are defined within the policy. There is no need for expert testimony to explain the meaning of the insurance policies.
Id. at *8. [Emphasis added.]
Further following settled rules on the admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony in Insurance Cases, the Court in this case also pointed out that the lawyer-Expert's Testimony might have been admissible if it had dealt with Bad Faith and Claims Handling issues. In that case, the Court held that there were Counterclaims "for bad faith and violation of the Texas Insurance Code" on which such Expert Testimony might have been admissible. Id. However, the proposed lawyer-Expert's Expert Witness Report under Rule 26 did not address any of those issues. "Because the only issues addressed in this opinion relate only to coverage, however, none of Martin's testimony is considered." Id. [Emphasis added.]
The Court in this decision did not make any new rules of evidence or procedure about Expert Witness Testimony in Insurance Cases. Instead, the Court summarized well-known rules that have existed for a long time before this decision was written.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments