Plaintiff Lorenzo Garcia alleged that he was lawfully stopped at a red light when the vehicle Kenneth Childress was driving collided with the vehicle Pasty Ration was driving, causing Ms. Ration’s vehicle to strike the rear of Garcias vehicle. Garcia further alleged that as a result of the accident he sustained permanent, disabling injuries requiring extensive medical treatment.
At the time of the collision, Garcia held a valid automobile insurance policy with State Farm, which included uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage with policy limits of $600,000. He alleged that the other drivers’ auto insurance coverage was insufficient to compensate him for his injuries. Garcia further alleged that he timely submitted a claim for UM/UIM benefits to State Farm but that State Farm failed to pay him the full benefits he is owed under the policy.
Garcia disclosed Elliott Flood as an expert who may testify on his behalf at trial and produced Flood’s report.
Defendants asked the Court to “confine Flood’s testimony to industry standards and customs relevant to this matter” and to prohibit him from “testifying to any legal conclusions” and from “applying the law to the facts as part of his testimony at trial.”
Insurance Expert Witness
Elliott St. John Flood has 35 years of professional experience in the insurance industry, including in positions of significant responsibility, as well as over a decade of professional experience as an attorney specializing in insurance law.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants argued that the Court should exclude portions of Flood’s proffered opinions because they infringe on the Court’s duty to define the law of the case and the jury’s duty to apply that law to the facts and are thus unhelpful.
Plaintiff is correct that expert testimony is not objectionable merely because it refers to legal concepts and Flood’s opinions are not excludable on that basis. For example, Flood’s opinions are not excludable merely because they address the legal concepts of “damages” and “causation.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to refute Defendants’ charge that some of Flood’s opinions impermissibly state legal conclusions that he has drawn by applying the law to the facts of the case. And based on his report, it certainly appeared that Flood proposed to opine about the propriety of Defendants’ conduct in relation not only to insurance industry customs, practices, and standards, but also to Defendants’ legal duties as he defines them.
Flood proposed to opine that “insurers handling first-party claims owe a heightened standard of fairness and transparency” and have a “fiduciary-like responsibility when handling UM claims for their policyholders.” These opinions appeared to concern Defendants’ legal duties rather than industry standards. But whether a legal duty exists is a question for the Court to decide, and it would not be helpful to the jury for Flood to opine on this topic.
In addition, Flood frequently appeared to draw legal conclusions by directly or indirectly characterizing Defendants’ conduct as unreasonable or in bad faith, where unreasonableness and bad faith are elements of claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court excluded Flood’s testimony because such testimony is not helpful, and it is also more unfairly prejudicial than probative.
Held
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude certain opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Elliott Flood.
Key Takeaway
Flood did more than opine about insurance industry customs, practices, and standards and whether Defendants’ handling of Plaintiff’s claim conformed to such norms. Rather, Flood appeared to define the scope of Defendants’ legal duties, including the duties to act reasonably and in good faith, and to apply the law regarding these duties to the facts of the case, impinging on the Court’s and the jury’s performance of these functions.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Garcia V. State Farm Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv1286 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Mexico |
| Order Date: | April 17, 2026 |
Leave a Reply