Pyramid Technologies, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because I do not agree that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the proposed expert testimony of Plaintiffs experts should be excluded. I also disagree, in any event, that summary judgment was improperly granted.

The central issue in this case was whether the inventory in Plaintiffs warehouse was damaged as a result of floodwaters that did not even reach the shelves on which inventory was stored. Therefore, the only potential source of damage to the inventory was condensation. The critical question was whether that condensation originated from the flood waters or from some other source of humidity. Because neither of the excluded experts opined as to that critical causation question, the district court acted within its discretion when it excluded their testimony.

We review the district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion. See Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 460 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc). The district court is given “broad latitude” in performing this gatekeeping function and no Daubert 1 hearing is required. Id. at 463 . A district court abuses its discretion…

After a flood occurred in the warehouse of a business that purchased and resold electronic parts, a dispute arose between the business and its insurer. The insured sued, alleging express breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. The insurer moved for summary judgment. Without holding a Dau-bert hearing, 1 the district court excluded the insured’s expert witnesses and granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding insufficient evidence that the flood caused damage to the insured’s inventory. *811 Because the district court abused its discretion by not allowing a jury to resolve contested but otherwise admissible expert testimony, we reverse and remand for trial.

FACTS

Pyramid Technologies, Inc. (“Pyramid”) purchased an insurance policy (the “Policy”) from Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (“Hartford”). The Policy provides coverage limits of $1 million for building replacement costs, $5.5 million for business personal property replacement costs, and $3 million for lost business income and additional expenses due to the inteiTuption of business operations. To trigger coverage for building or business personal property replacement costs, the…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PYRAMID TECHNOLOGIES, INC., No. 11-56304 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. ALLIED PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, INC.; 8:08-cv-00367- DOUGLAS W. SCHROEDER, Lien AHS-RNB Claimant / Former Attorney for Plaintiff Pyramid Technologies, Inc., OPINION Claimants,

v.

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, Indiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2013—Pasadena, California

Filed May 19, 2014

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Michael H. Simon, District Judge.*

* The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Opinion by Judge Simon; Dissent by Judge Rawlinson

SUMMARY**

Expert Testimony

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of an insurer in a diversity insurance coverage action, and remanded for a trial.

The…