Wade

Wade v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Good Law
203 F. App'x 827
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 27, 2006No. 05-35169California490 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In a common law insurance action, Ruth Wade alleged that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance acted in bad faith in denying her claim for damages sustained in a car accident with State Farm’s insured, Timothy Avallone. Following a trial on Wade’s claims, the jury found that State Farm did not act in bad faith and the district court entered judgment against Wade. On appeal, Wade argues that the district court erred in excluding expert witness testimony, barring questioning at trial of Avallone’s attorney, and denying recovery for attorneys’ fees, punitive damages and damages for non-severe emotional distress. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permissible sanctions for Wade’s non-compliance with the court’s order granting State Farm’s motion to compel the production of all documents on which Mathis relied in preparing his expert report include issuing “[a]n order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(b)(2). Given Wade’s well-documented…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.