Plaintiff Ashley Fawcett was in a car accident in 2017, while she was covered by an insurance policy issued by Defendant Standard Fire Insurance Company (doing business as Travelers Insurance Company (“Travelers”)). Fawcett opened claims with Travelers, and alleged in this lawsuit that Travelers unreasonably investigated and evaluated her claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits.
Travelers filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Fawcett’s expert Mary Owen because her opinions consisted of legal conclusions on the ultimate issue, namely whether Travelers’ conduct was unreasonable or violates insurance regulations. Travelers also contended that Owen lacked the experience or qualifications necessary to allow her to testify as an expert as to proper claim-handling procedures.
Insurance Expert Witness
Mary E. Owen is widely regarded as an authoritative expert in the field of insurance defense litigation. She is experienced in all aspects of civil litigation, from commencement to resolution, by way of dismissal, negotiated settlement, alternative dispute resolution, and jury trials.
Discussion by the Court
Fawcett emphasized the portions of Owen’s testimony that pertained to issues of fact and accused Travelers’ expert of including legal conclusions in his testimony. Fawcett also contended that to the extent that any legal conclusions need to be excluded from Owen’s testimony, this issue is the proper subject of a motion in limine, rather than a broad motion to exclude.
The Court agreed with this approach, finding that wholesale exclusion of Owen’s testimony and report would be inappropriate. Owen’s declaration submitted in support of Fawcett’s opposition to Travelers’ summary judgment motion does contain opinions regarding Travelers’ compliance (or non-compliance) with industry standards, but some portions could also be characterized as legal conclusions outside her purview as an expert.
The report attached to Owen’s declaration references legal conclusions to a lesser degree: she opined that Travelers’ conduct violated certain standards and was unreasonable, but does not, for example, conclude that this conduct constitutes bad faith. The Court did not rely on Owen’s legal conclusions in resolving Travelers’ summary judgment motion, and it can excise the legal conclusions from Owen’s trial testimony via a motion in limine.
Travelers’ second argument, as to Owen’s expertise, also failed to persuade the Court that Owen’s testimony should be excluded entirely. Travelers has not shown that Owen is categorically unqualified to serve as an expert in this case, given Owen’s years of experience in the relevant field. To the extent that Travelers disputed whether Owen’s experience was sufficiently particularized as to be useful in this case, this argument goes to the weight that should be given to Owen’s testimony, rather than its admissibility.
Held
The Court denied Travelers’ motion to exclude Mary E. Owen’s testimony.
Key Takeaway:
While the Court acknowledged that expert witnesses cannot offer legal conclusions, it determined that fully excluding Owen’s testimony was unnecessary. The Court found that a motion in limine could resolve any concerns regarding legal conclusions in her testimony, allowing her opinions on industry standards to remain. Additionally, the Court ruled that any questions about Owen’s experience concerned the weight accorded to her testimony, not its admissibility.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Fawcett V. The Standard Fire Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv248 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Order Date: | October 4, 2024 |
Leave a Reply