BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Insurance

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, March 5, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will prepare insurance litigators to meet the Daubert/Frye standards on the admissibility of expert opinion testimony and outline practical strategies for challenging expert testimony. Litigators will learn key differences between federal and state expert testimony standards in those jurisdictions that have not adopted Daubert and how the use of one set of standards over another impacts the case.

Faculty

Guy O. Kornblum
Principal
Guy O. Kornblum, APLC

Mr. Kornblum has specialized as a trial and appellate lawyer for 45 years. He has handled over 3,500 litigated matters to conclusion and has several million dollar plus cases to his credit. Mr. Kornblum’s practice focuses on representing plaintiffs, claimants, policyholders and victims of tortious and contractual wrongs in insurance bad faith, among other claims.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Hector E. Salitrero
Partner
Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, SC

Mr. Salitrero is an insurance trial lawyer with extensive experience litigating Daubert issues in both state and federal courts. He has a broad spectrum of tort/personal injury litigation experience, which he brings to bear in his subrogation practice. Mr. Salitrero has served as a first chair litigator in more than 60 jury trials and has led teams of attorneys in major litigation. He also has extensive appellate experience. Mr. Salitrero is certified by the National Association of Subrogation Professionals as a Subrogation Recovery Professional.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Andrea M. Price
Member
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC

Ms. Price regularly represents manufacturers in products liability and toxic tort lawsuits, insurers in coverage and bad faith disputes, and oil and gas companies in environmental matters. She has experience representing clients in trial and appellate matters, as well as in complex multidistrict litigation. Ms. Price is a frequent author and lecturer on litigation tactics and other matters.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Daniel F. Sullivan
Partner
Robinson & Cole LLP

Mr. Sullivan is a trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience representing clients in complex commercial disputes, with an emphasis on insurance coverage and extra-contractual claims litigation. He has substantial trial experience, having tried more than 25 matters to verdict, final judgment, or final arbitration decision. Mr. Sullivan’s work representing insurance companies in complex property insurance coverage litigation includes serving as counsel for insurers in significant cases arising from Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Ike, Hurricane Katrina, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. He has also litigated cases involving losses to residences and businesses arising from catastrophic fires and explosions, mold contamination, defective workmanship, and construction defects.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

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.

Outline

  1. Overview of Daubert and Frye standards for admissibility of expert witnesses
  2. Standards in states where Daubert does not control
  3. Strategic and tactical considerations in challenging expert testimony
    1. Motions in limine
    2. Motions for summary judgment
    3. Experts' use of hearsay articles and literature
  4. Case law applying expert witness reliability standards in insurance litigation

Benefits

The panel will review these and other notable questions:

  • How can counsel effectively challenge an expert witness' theories and whether those theories have been adequately tested?
  • Under what circumstances should counsel consider not filing a Daubert/Frye motion?
  • What are the pros and cons of challenges to expert testimony at summary judgment or in motions in limine?
  • What are the key differences between federal and state expert testimony standards in those jurisdictions that have not adopted Daubert?
  • How do counsel successfully challenge experts who rely on hearsay articles written by others?