Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 APRIL 2001

Bad Faith Experts After Kumho

Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner
Explore more from Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Alan Untereiner
Alan Untereiner

Co-written by Evan Tager and Eileen Penner of Mayer Brown and Platt, United States.

Increasingly, plaintiffs in bad faith cases have turned to so-called bad faith experts to help make their case. Courts have often accepted this relatively new species of expert testimony uncritically, allowing these putative experts to testify not simply to the duties of a claims handler, but also to such topics as the insurer's reasons for acting as it did toward the insured1 and whether the insurer has an overall practice of cheating its insureds.2 The Supreme Court's recent decision in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,3 however, should provide insurers with a potent new weapon against the bad faith expert.

I. Background On Kumho

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from