Joan Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, and the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Unumprovident Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony that an insurance company 12 deviated from industry standards did not constitute a legal conclusion
• concluding that 7 an expert witness may testify about insurance industry standards but not directly about 8 legal conclusions
• holding that expert witness did not \usurp the court's role\ where his references to California statutory provisions, which informed his understanding of insurance industry norms, were \ancillary to the ultimate issue of bad faith\
• holding that an expert may not 12 “give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law” nor 13 “instruct[] the jury as to the applicable law”
• recognizing that a witness who lived more than 100 miles from the court was “outside of the court’s subpoena power” and therefore “unavailable” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 and Federal Rule of Evidence 804
• holding that 14 decades of experience in relevant industry is sufficient to satisfy the “minimal foundation of 15 knowledge, skill, and experience required in order to give ‘expert’ testimony” as to practices and 16 norms in that industry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).