Cedar Hill Hardware & Construction Supply, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of Hannover

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an expert's proposed testimony was admissible under Daubert due to the expert's \exhaustive experience in the insurance industry\
• holding that an expert’s proposed testimony was admissible under Daubert due to the expert’s “exhaustive experience in the insurance industry”
• noting that “that exclusion of testimony as to designated topics may be an appropriate sanction for a corporation’s inadequate designation” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2))
• noting the discrepancy between state and federal cases on Missouri recoupment law and upholding a district court's imposition of a damages award in a declaratory judgment action
• admitting, under Missouri law, evidence of insured’s actions with regard to alleged arson to “show the information [insurer] 31 had received and relied upon in investigating the claim[.]”
• stating in regards to near identical policy language that the express terms of the policy allowed the insurer to void the policy “in the event of a false and material intentional representation as to any one of the four listed topics” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).