SPRINGFIELD, Feb. 29 – A federal judge in Missouri has denied an insured couple’s attempt to exclude expert evidence Allstate Insurance intends to submit in a declaratory judgment action in which it seeks to have its denial of a homeowners insurance coverage claim upheld.
In Allstate Indemnity Company v. Joseph Dixon, et al., No. 14-cv-03489-MDH. W.D. Mo.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24678, U.S. District Judge Douglas Harpool denied a motion to strike Allstate’s expert disclosures filed by Allstate insureds Joseph Dixon and his wife, ruling that the value of the couple’s home could be probative of the couples’ financial motive to commit arson fraud. The Court found that Allstate’s proposed testimony from a county assessor as to the value of the insured couple’s home would not prejudice the homeowners, although it reserved final judgment about the precise nature of the allowed testimony until later in the case.
Allstate denied coverage for the April 2014 fire, claiming that the Dixons falsified material facts with regard to the claimed loss. A cause and origin and claims investigation by Allstate revealed that the fire was intentionally set. The Dixons contended in their motion to strike expert disclosures that the value of their home was not in dispute, and that expert testimony concerning the value of the property would be confusing to the jury as well as irrelevant, cumulative and prejudicial.
In denying the motion, Judge Harpool cited to an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling which discussed proper evidence of motive in arson fraud cases, Gen. Cas. Ins. Companies v. Holst Radiator Co. (88 F.3d 670, 672 [8th Cir. 1996]).
Allstate v. Dixon (W.D. Mo. 2016)
badfaithadvisor.com 