Neda Raschkovsky v. Allstate Ins. Co., 696 F. App'x 314

Neda and Ricardo Raschkovsky sued Allstate for breach of contract and bad faith after Allstate denied coverage for a home water leak claim.
At summary judgment, the district court excluded several pieces of the Raschkovskys’ evidence: expert opinions on the nature of the leak, a post-litigation declaration by Neda Raschkovsky, and a plumber’s statement about not seeing mold.
The district court granted summary judgment to Allstate on both breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims based on the reduced evidentiary record.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the excluded evidence was properly barred and whether, when considered, it created genuine issues of material fact as to coverage and bad faith.
The Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by excluding the experts’ opinions, Neda’s declaration, and the plumber’s statement and found that, when considered, this evidence could support findings that the leak was "sudden and accidental" and that Allstate unreasonably denied the claim.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, leaving punitive-damages questions to the district court on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of experts' opinions on cause of leak	Experts rely on discipline knowledge/experience; admissible and raise triable issue	Opinions incomplete and conflict with Allstate experts; should be excluded	Exclusion was an abuse; opinions admissible — weight goes to cross-examination, not exclusion
Admissibility of Neda Raschkovsky’s declaration	Declaration not clearly inconsistent with prior sworn testimony; admissible	Declaration conflicts with earlier deposition; should be struck	Declaration not clearly and unambiguously inconsistent; should not have been excluded
Admissibility of plumber’s statement about mold	Plumber’s statement does not contradict his other sworn statements; admissible	Statement inconsistent with other evidence; should be excluded	Statement not self-contradictory; exclusion was improper
Grant of summary judgment on breach and bad faith	With excluded evidence admitted, genuine disputes exist on "sudden and accidental" cause and insurer’s reasonableness	No triable issue; exclusions justified and denial of coverage proper	Reversed: genuine issues of material fact exist on coverage and bad faith; summary judgment improper

Pyramid Techs. Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2014) (expert opinion admissibility may rest on discipline knowledge and experience)
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (shaky but admissible evidence should be tested at trial, not excluded)
Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (rule on impeachment by prior inconsistent statements requires clear and unambiguous inconsistency)
Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1999) (witness testimony rejected only when it contradicts the witness’s own sworn statements)
Aydin Corp. v. First State Ins. Co., 959 P.2d 1213 (Cal. 1998) (coverage for sudden and accidental water damage)
Bosetti v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in the City of N.Y., 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744 (Ct. App. 2009) (standard for unreasonable insurer conduct in bad-faith claims)
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (summary judgment view: evidence construed in nonmovant’s favor)
Amadeo v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for punitive damages review in insurer misconduct cases)