Foran Glennon shareholders Thomas Orlando and James Glennon recently obtained a decision from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the summary judgment entered on behalf of an insurer client in the district court, with the appellate court ruling that claims alleging that Foran Glennon’s client unreasonably withheld benefits in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing necessarily failed.
CASE BACKGROUND
An industrial business park in California claimed that wind damage to a building’s roof on the insured property led to interior water damage. Foran Glennon’s client insured the park’s property and initially issued a $4,000 payment for the damage but denied further coverage, finding that the damage was not caused by an acute weather event, but rather by general wear and tear.
Although the park claimed the roof damage resulted from a windstorm, the District Court for the Eastern District of California determined the park did not provide sufficient evidence to establish causation and granted summary judgment to the insurer.
The park appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, contending that the district court erred by:
1. Excluding their expert testimony regarding causation and
2. Concluding the park’s lay witness testimony was insufficient to create genuine factual dispute.
APPELLATE DECISION
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings, ruling that:
1. The court did not abuse its discretion when excluding the park’s proposed expert testimony, as the expert failed to provide any factual or methodological basis for his opinion.
2. The park failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the causation of the damage because witnesses were not disclosed as expert witnesses, and therefore, were excluded from offering opinion evidence based on their knowledge and experience as “building professionals.
a. ”The Ninth Circuit also noted these lay witness’ observations were far too limited to create a dispute regarding causation.
Tom concentrates his practice in insurance and appellate litigation, with experience in both insurance and general civil matters. He has handled appeals in state and federal courts nationwide, and is well-versed in coverage disputes involving property, liability and a range of commercial and personal insurance issues.
Jim concentrates his practice in first-party property insurance coverage, loss recovery/subrogation, casualty litigation, products liability and construction litigation. In addition to his extensive domestic and international litigation experience, Jim also represents excess liability insurers in the role as monitoring counsel in the energy sector in claims involving catastrophic injuries or extensive damages.