Pyramid Tech. v. Allied Public Adjusters, No. 11-56304 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePyramid Tech filed suit against its insurer, alleging express breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. Without holding a Daubert hearing, the district court excluded Pyramid Tech's expert witnesses and granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding insufficient evidence that a flood caused damage to Pyramid Tech's property. The court held that, after an expert establishes admissibility to the judge's satisfaction, challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury. In this instance, the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of David Spiegel and Ken Pytlewski, but did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of Del Mortenson. The district court erred in granting summary judgment against Pyramid Tech's claims where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the insurer breached its contract with Pyramid Tech and breached the implied covenant of good faith. However, to the extent such claims were premised on Pyramid Tech's business interruption theory, no material issues of fact existed and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against that theory of liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for retrial.
Court Description: Expert Testimony. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of an insurer in a diversity insurance coverage action, and remanded for a trial. The panel held that the district court erred by not allowing a jury to resolve contested but otherwise admissible expert testimony. The district court further held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the insured’s claims because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the insurer breached its contract with the insured and breached the implied covenant of good faith. The panel also held that to the extent such claims were premised on the insured’s business interruption theory, no material issues of fact existed, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against that theory of liability. Judge Rawlinson dissented because she did not agree that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the proposed expert testimony of the insured’s experts should be excluded. Judge Rawlinson also disagreed that summary judgment was improperly granted, and would affirm the district court’s judgment in its entirety.
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.