Expert testimony for one insurer that another insurer had a duty to defend, rather than the first insurer (the one that hired the expert to testify about it), was stricken as irrelevant in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 9:16-CV-81393-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2017 WL 1372858 (S.D. Fla. "signed" Feb. 10, 2017).
Further, expert testimony is simply unnecessary on the duty to defend. Retaining an expert to testify and lawyers to argue the point is probably a waste of money. The question of whether there is a duty to defend is clearly reserved for the judge to decide, at least under Florida law. "Testimony about the allegations in the condo association's complaint may be relevant, but it is not within the province of an expert witness to interpret those allegations. It is the responsibility of the Court, not a witness, to interpret and determine the significance of legal documents." Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 9:16-CV-81393-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2017 WL 1372858, at *2 (S.D. Fla. "signed" Feb. 10, 2017).
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments