Gay v. Stonebridge Life Insurance
660 F.3d 58
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Gay, executor of Anita Gay's estate, sues Stonebridge Life for breach of insurance contracts.
- Anita died after falling at a Rhode Island casino; autopsy and death certificates list accident with head injury as cause of death.
- Policies cover accidental death only if death is direct and independent of other causes; stroke/death argued to be non-accidental due to medical condition.
- Stonebridge retained Dr. Paul Rizzoli, who opined that a preceding stroke contributed to death; his report disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
- Gay sought new trial arguing Dr. Rizzoli's testimony exceeded the scope of the report; district court admitted the testimony.
- Jury verdicts for Stonebridge; Gay moved for new trial; district court denied; on appeal, First Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Dr. Rizzoli’s testimony | Rizzoli testimony exceeded his disclosed scope. | Testimony within scope and clarifying the stroke contribution. | No abuse of discretion; testimony within scope. |
| Rule 26(a)(2)(B) sanctions and admissibility | Non-disclosure precluded use of the opinion. | Report adequately anticipated the trial testimony. | Rule 26 disclosure satisfied; sanctions not warranted. |
| Harmlessness of any error | Exclusion could have changed outcome in a close case. | Evidence already supported stroke as contributing factor; no prejudice. | No reversible error; substantial rights not affected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peña-Crespo v. Puerto Rico, 408 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard for Rule 26 sanctions and harmless error review)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (sanctions for Rule 26(a)(2) violations; harmless error framework)
- Newell Puerto Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid Inc., 20 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1994) (discretion in sanctions for Rule 26 violations)
- Poulis-Minott v. Smith, 388 F.3d 354 (1st Cir. 2004) (sanctions and fair disclosure in expert discovery)
- Licciardi v. TIG Ins. Grp., 140 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 1998) (scope of expert disclosure and ability to depose)
- Muldrow ex rel. Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc., 493 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (allowing elaboration of disclosed expert opinions)
- Rubert-Torres v. Hosp. San Pablo, Inc., 205 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2000) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Lynch v. City of Boston, 180 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (test for determining whether admission affected substantial rights)
- Vickers v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company, 135 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 1998) (dominant cause analysis in insurance coverage cases)