Maria Amplatz v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 823 F.3d 1167

Maria Amplatz owned several rental properties insured by Country Mutual; a July 17, 2010 hail/wind storm damaged exteriors and (allegedly) caused interior water damage.
Parties tried two properties; they agreed exterior hail/wind damage was covered but disputed whether interior water damage was caused by the storm (covered) or by deferred maintenance (not covered).
Amplatz used two experts: public adjuster Paul Norcia (inspected early, issued original report 2014) and roofing consultant Gregory Phillips (initial report based on documents; later took core samples revealing moisture and drafted a June 16, 2014 supplemental report). Amplatz did not timely disclose Phillips’s supplemental report.
Country’s adjuster and consultant (Laramee and Balistreri) attributed interior water damage to maintenance defects and aging, not storm-caused breaches.
Amplatz served supplemental expert reports in December 2014 (after progression-order deadline and less than 30 days before then-scheduled trial); the district court excluded new items of damage in Norcia’s supplement and excluded Phillips’s moisture-based replacement theory as untimely and prejudicial.
At trial Amplatz presented Norcia (not Phillips); jury awarded damages for exterior hail/wind-related losses but nothing for interior water damage. The district court denied Amplatz’s new-trial motion; Amplatz appealed.

Issue	Amplatz's Argument	Country's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of portions of untimely supplemental expert reports required a new trial	Exclusion prevented presentation of key evidence (moisture/core results and additional interior-damage items), prejudicing the defense of coverage	Disclosure was egregiously untimely, prejudiced Country’s ability to respond, and a continuance was not requested; exclusion was proper under Rule 16/37	Affirmed — district court acted within discretion; Patterson factors considered; exclusion did not produce fundamental unfairness
Whether jury instruction misstated law by requiring proof that claimed damage “was caused by damage that occurred during the policy period”	Instruction misstates Minnesota law and the policy, which covers damage "resulting from" a Covered Cause of Loss (the hailstorm) rather than requiring prior "damage" during the period	Instruction, read with other instructions, adequately informed jury that coverage required storm-caused damage during policy period	Affirmed under plain-error review — instructions, taken together, fairly presented issues to jury

Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing new-trial denial and sanctions discretion)
Patterson v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 786 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1986) (factors for excluding witnesses/reports for pretrial-order noncompliance)
Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 788 (D. Minn. 2000) (applying Patterson factors to untimely supplemental expert reports)
Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., 825 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2013) (principle that policy language governs insurance-coverage proof)
Dupre v. Fru-Con Eng'g Inc., 112 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 1997) (plain-error standard for review of jury-instruction objections)