Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004)
What did the court decide?
In a civil insurance bad-faith case, the Ninth Circuit upheld admission of an insurance-industry expert who testified that the insurer departed from industry standards. The court explained that an expert cannot give a legal conclusion (an opinion on an ultimate issue of law), but this expert never said the insurer acted in bad faith; he testified about industry standards, which supported that finding without stating it. The court also held that for non-scientific testimony like this, Daubert factors such as peer review and error rates may not apply, because reliability depends on the expert's knowledge and experience. The trial judge wrongly said Daubert did not apply at all, but that was harmless because the judge had probed the expert's experience.
Why does it matter?
This is a civil insurance case, not a criminal case, but courts in the Ninth Circuit often cite it for the line between permitted testimony about professional standards and forbidden legal conclusions.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.