McClue v. Safeco Insurance
2015 MT 222
| Mont. | 2015Background
- In a 2009 car crash, Carol McClue later was diagnosed with bulbar ALS and died in 2013; her husband Dan McClue pursued UIM benefits from Safeco, which denied coverage on the ground the crash did not cause the ALS.
- McClue retained two neurologists for causation: Dr. Decontee Jimmeh‑Fletcher (treating neurologist) who said trauma can be a risk factor but would not say the crash caused Carol’s ALS, and Dr. John Sabow (retained expert) who opined the crash was the proximate cause.
- Safeco moved in limine to exclude both experts’ causation testimony; the District Court granted both motions.
- Safeco then moved for summary judgment; McClue reserved appeal on the evidentiary rulings, did not oppose the summary judgment, and the court entered judgment for Safeco.
- On appeal the Montana Supreme Court reviewed the exclusions for abuse of discretion, reversed exclusion of Dr. Sabow, affirmed exclusion of Dr. Jimmeh‑Fletcher on causation, and reversed the summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Sabow’s causation opinion | Sabow is a qualified neurologist with ALS expertise; his causation opinion should be admissible and weight issues go to the jury | Sabow’s own concessions that ALS causation is unknown render his causation opinion unreliable and he is not qualified to offer it | Reversed — Court held Sabow was qualified under M. R. Evid. 702; exclusion was improper because the court improperly evaluated application/reliability that is for the jury |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Jimmeh‑Fletcher’s causation testimony | Her testimony that trauma can contribute to neurodegeneration is admissible to show causation | Her testimony did not meet the necessary certainty ("more likely than not") to prove causation | Affirmed — her testimony amounted to "could have" and failed to meet the reasonable‑medical‑certainty/probability standard required to establish causation |
| Standard of review for expert exclusion that produces summary judgment | McClue: review evidentiary ruling de novo in summary judgment context | Safeco: evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court held: exclusion of expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion; summary judgment still reviewed de novo |
| Whether summary judgment was proper after expert exclusions | Without Sabow admissible, no triable issue of causation | Exclusion of Sabow left no admissible evidence of causation and justified summary judgment | Reversed — because Sabow’s testimony should have been admitted, genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 289 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2012) (expert‑exclusion reviewed for abuse of discretion where exclusion undercut plaintiff’s prima facie case)
- State v. Clifford, 121 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2005) (framework requiring court to assess field reliability and expert qualifications under M. R. Evid. 702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping factors for scientific expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
- Hinkle ex rel. Hinkle v. Shepherd Sch. Dist. No. 37, 93 P.3d 1239 (Mont. 2004) (medical expert must testify to causation to a reasonable medical certainty; "more likely than not" standard)
- Butler v. Domin, 15 P.3d 1189 (Mont. 2000) (trial court discretion in admitting/excluding expert testimony)