United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE
DEFENDANT'S EXPERTS
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on two motions filed Plaintiff
Shawn Williams: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
S.I.'s Expert Nathan Rose, M.S., (“Motion to Strike
Expert Rose”) (Doc. # 24) and (2) Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Defendant's Expert
Keith Oliveira, Esq. (“Motion to Strike Expert
Oliveira”) (Doc. # 29) (together, “Motions to
Strike Experts”). For the reasons outlined below, the
Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Expert Rose but
grants his Motion to Strike Oliveira.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Court detailed the factual basis of this case in its Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 44.) That Order is incorporated
by reference, and the facts explained therein need not be
repeated. The Court recounts only the facts necessary to
address Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Experts.
As a
result of the Court's summary judgment order,
Plaintiff's sole remaining claim against Defendant is for
breach of contract. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff asserts
that Defendant breached its contract for automobile insurance
(the “Policy”) by denying Plaintiff's claim
for uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage after he
was injured in a collision on July 1, 2015. (Doc. # 6.)
During
the course of litigation, Defendant retained an accident
reconstructionist, Nathan Rose, M.S., to opine on questions
of Plaintiff's negligence and comparative fault before
and during the collision. (Doc. # 26 at 5.) Mr. Rose prepared
an accident reconstruction report for Defendant on August 28,
2018. (Doc. # 26-4.) Defendant also retained an attorney with
a knowledge of insurance industry standards, Keith Oliveira,
Esq., to outline claim handling standards and practices for
the jury. (Doc. # 31 at 3.) Mr. Oliveira prepared a report on
Defendant's handling of Plaintiff's claim for UM
benefits on September 28, 2018. (Doc. # 29-4.) Defendant has
designed both Mr. Rose and Mr. Oliveira as experts.
See (Doc. ## 26 at 5, 31 at 3.)
Plaintiff
filed his Motion to Strike Rose on November 28, 2018, arguing
that Mr. Rose's opinions must be stricken under Federal
Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 because his conclusion about
Plaintiff's fault in causing the collision “is an
after-the-fact attempt by Defendant to provide additional
justification for denying the UM claim” and is
“not relevant to the issues the jury must
decide.”[1] (Doc. # 24 at 3.) Defendant responded in
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Rose on
December 19, 2018 (Doc. # 26), to which Plaintiff replied on
December 26, 2018 (Doc. # 28).
Plaintiff
filed his Motion to Strike Oliveira on December 26, 2018, on
the grounds that Mr. Oliveira's opinions are improper
under Rules 702 and 403 because they “attempt to define
the law of the case” and therefore “usurp[] the
function of the Court to instruct the jury on what the law
is.” (Doc. # 29.) Defendant filed its Response in
support of the admissibility of Mr. Oliveira's expert
testimony on January 16, 2019 (Doc. # 31); Plaintiff replied
in support of his motion on January 22, 2019 (Doc. # 33).
On June
4, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 25).
(Doc. # 44.) Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract
survived summary judgment because Plaintiff had demonstrated
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he and Toni
Wagner, the insurance policy holder, were in a valid common
law marriage at the time of the collision. (Id. at
13.) However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's other
claims-for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits under
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116 and for
common law bad faith-because it was satisfied that
Defendant's handling of Plaintiff's claim for UM
coverage was reasonable as a matter of law. (Id. at
15.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
Daubert, the trial court acts as a
“gatekeeper” by reviewing a proffered expert
opinion for reliability pursuant to Rule 702 and for
relevance pursuant to Rule 401. See Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-95 (1993);
see also Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R.
Co., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2000).
Rule
702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. It
provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by
“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education” may testify if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence ...