Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

September 19, 2026

4 Views 0

SaveSavedRemoved 0

See the full video at https://youtu.be/Ol1UUSym9Gw and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the experience supports the conclusion and is reliably applied.

An insurance expert may not instruct the jury on governing law, apply law to facts to state legal conclusions, rely only on internal company practices or aspirational “best practices,” or offer speculative and unsupported conclusions.

To determine whether an expert opinion is admissible, the court must perform a two-step analysis.

The court must determine whether the expert is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to render an opinion.
If the expert is sufficiently qualified, the proffered opinions must be assessed for reliability.

Discussion

State Farm argued that Castillo lacked sufficient insurance-industry expertise and that several opinions were unreliable, speculative, unsupported by industry standards, or impermissible legal conclusions.

Analysis

The court found Castillo qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, and training. It permitted him to identify standards codified in Colorado’s Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act and to compare those standards with specific conduct.

It excluded the opinion that State Farm Auto should have conducted an earlier physical inspection because Castillo described only a “best practice,” not an industry standard.

Castillo did not identify a supporting standard or explain how attempted reassignment caused delay. Finally, it excluded opinions concerning discontinued parts because they relied on State Farm Auto’s internal practices and did not connect the alleged delays to an identifiable industry standard

Conclusion

Castillo may testify about his qualifications, applicable insurance-industry standards, estimate handling, State Farm Auto’s procedures with Weld County Garage.

Castillo may not testify that State Farm Auto was required to perform a physical inspection, that attempted claim reassignment caused delay, or that its handling of discontinued parts violated industry standards.

In some cases, such as insurance bad faith cases, expert witnesses are permitted to testify about relevant legal standards. An expert’s testimony is not per se inadmissible simply because it requires discussion of the law. When the purpose of testimony is to direct the jury’s understanding of the legal standards upon which their verdict must be based, the testimony cannot be allowed.

Industry standards’ are those practices or procedures that, although not compelled by law, are generally and voluntarily observed by all or most participants in a certain industry for reasons such as efficiency, convenience, or uniformity.

The Court found that Mr. Castillo is qualified to opine on insurance industry standards by way of his knowledge, skill, experience, and training.

As discussed above, Mr. Castillo can rely on insurance standard statutes when identifying industry standards. Furthermore, it is proper for Mr. Castillo to opine as to whether State Farm Auto’s conduct conformed to these standards. Mr. Castillo may discuss these industry standards and compare those standards to specific, factual instances of defendant’s actions and compare those specific instances to industry standards he identifies.

Mr. Castillo failed to properly tie his opinion that State Farm Auto should have performed a physical inspection to an industry standard. Mr. Castillo merely stated it is “best practice” for a physical inspection to be performed.

Mr. Castillo has sufficient background, experience and knowledge of standard insurance practices and will be allowed to testify at trial but that testimony will be limited because Castillo was unable to tie some of his opinions to industry standard. Experts, including Castillo, may not testify with testimony that is speculative and contains unsupported conclusions.