Pursley v. Lawrence

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PAUL PURSLEY, JR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 21-1776 SUSAN LAWRENCE, ET AL SECTION: "S" (5) ORDER & REASONS Before the court is plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Strike Untimely Attorney Expert. Rec. Doc. 82. Defendant opposes the motion. This suit includes an Uninsured Motorist ("UM") coverage claim as well as claims for

bad faith penalties against the UM carrier, GEICO. Defendant has proffered the expert testimony of attorney P.M. Donovan to testify as an expert on penalty claims against insurance companies. Following recitation of underlying facts in this case, Donovan's expert conclusion states: "GEICO Casual Company has acted in a reasonable manner respecting unconditional UM tenders to Pursley, based upon consideration of the information available to it at the time, fully consistent with the practice in in Lousisiana personal injury litigation." Rec. Doc. 86-1, 4. "Although Federal Rule of Evidence 704 permits opinions that 'embrace[ ] an ultimate issue,' this court has 'repeatedly held that [Rule 704] does not allow an expert to render

conclusions of law.' " Porter v. Lear, 751 F. App'x 422, 433 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Snap-Drape, Inc. v. Comm'r, 98 F.3d 194, 198 (5th Cir. 1996)). Donovan's proposed testimony consists of a legal conclusion on whether GEICO acted reasonably in this case, an ultimate issue that is solely the province of the fact-finder. Accordingly, the proposed expert testimony is not appropriate, and therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Strike Untimely Attorney Expert (Rec. Doc. 82) is GRANTED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of August, 2022.

vagy ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE