Plaintiff Charm Hospitality, LLC filed this lawsuit alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice against Defendant Nohayia Javed, Esq. Specifically, Charm made various allegations, in which it contended that Javed fell below the standard of care in her representation of Charm in connection with her prosecution of an insurance claim relating to water damage sustained at a Hotel owned by Charm in Elko, Nevada. The Hotel and the business’ personal property (“BPP”) were insured by General Security and Indemnity Company of Arizona (“GSICA”), and Defendant West Town Bank & Trust (“WTB”) held a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note secured by the Hotel and the BPP, as well as a personal guaranty from Charm’s sole owner and member, Param
Kaur.
West Town Bank and Javed filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert, Brian P. Worthington.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Brian Paul Worthington is a 1991 graduate of the University of Wisconsin, and a 1995 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law. He was a partner at Wingert, Grebing, Anello & Brubaker, and then Ryan, Mercaldo & Worthington before starting a solo practice in 2012.
Discussion by the Court
WTB argued that Worthington, in his expert report, offered nothing more than improper legal conclusions about his interpretations of the insurance policy and the application of NRS 40.455.
Here, Worthington opined that WTB is not entitled to receive policy benefits under the insurance policy based on the language in the loss payable provisions endorsement because it no longer has a financial interest in the property. This is a legal conclusion because it improperly interpreted the insurance policy.
Moreover, Worthington’s opinion is devoid of any discussion on industry standards, claims-handling practice, underwriting customs, etc.
Worthington further opined that “the ‘entire’ debt was eliminated, extinguished, and forever barred from collection when the deadline in NRS 40.455(1) elapsed” and that “once the sixth-month deadline in NRS 40.455 passed with no deficiency action, Charm Hospitality’s debt to WTB was extinguished and WTB ceased to have any financial interest in the insurance proceeds.” Again, this is improper because it applies the relevant law to the facts and draws a legal conclusion regarding extinguishment of the debt.
Accordingly, the Court struck Worthington’s opinion interpreting the insurance policy and applying NRS 40.455.
Held
The Court granted WTB’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert Brian Worthington.
Key Takeaway
Expert testimony cannot be used to provide legal meaning or interpret the policies as written. In other words, expert testimony which purported to interpret a statute and opine as to whether it was violated was an improper legal conclusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Charm Hospitality LLC V. Javed |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv282 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nevada |
| Order Date: | June 11, 2026 |
Leave a Reply