Insurance Litigation: Leveraging Daubert/Frye Admissibility Standards for Expert Testimony in State and Federal Court

Description

Daubert/Frye issues and the reliability of expert testimony are often at the heart of insurance litigation, whether coverage, bad faith, or claims litigation. Despite the varied types of experts utilized in insurance litigation, the battle over reliability and admissibility often dictates the lawsuit's outcome. If not dispositive of the case, a successful Daubert/Frye challenge can put a party in a more favorable settlement position.

While Daubert controls admissibility in federal courts and states that have adopted Daubert, in many states Daubert does not control. Some states use a Frye approach and may consider Daubert rulings relevant or persuasive on some scientific issues. Litigators must be familiar with both approaches and recognize when the use of one set of standards over another may impact the outcome of the case.

Litigators must weigh strategic and procedural issues in challenging expert testimony, including bringing a challenge at summary judgment stage or a motion in limine. A vexing problem facing opposing counsel is the experts' use of hearsay articles and literature to express an opinion. Counsel can challenge the professionally reliable hearsay exception by critically questioning the significance of peer-reviewed publications.

Listen as our authoritative panel of experienced insurance litigators discusses the Daubert/Frye standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony in insurance coverage, bad faith, and claims litigation. The panel will discuss key strategic and tactical issues in challenging expert witness testimony and the differences between Daubert standards and standards in states that have not fully adopted Daubert.