Amplatz v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., No. 15-2645 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an insured under a commercial-property insurance policy issued by Country Mutual, was awarded $76,065.50 by the jury for covered hail and wind damage to her property. However, the jury found that the policy did not cover water damage to the interiors of the property. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the district court applied the law correctly under the federal rules and acted within the scope of its discretion in excluding certain portions from the supplemental expert reports; plaintiff was not prejudiced by the exclusion of this evidence to an extent resulting in fundamental unfairness; and the jury instructions fairly and adequately presented the issues in the case to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for new trial and entry of judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. The district court did not err in excluding certain portions of supplemental reports on the ground they were not disclosed on a timely basis; in any event, plaintiff possessed a substantial amount of admissible evidence to support her theories and was not prejudiced by the exclusion of the evidence to an extent that a fundamental unfairness occurred; challenge to jury instructions rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.