• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Discovery / South Carolina District Court Finds Expert Report Does Not Satisfy Obligation Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) To Provide Method of Damages Calculation

South Carolina District Court Finds Expert Report Does Not Satisfy Obligation Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) To Provide Method of Damages Calculation

July 20, 2016 by Carlton Fields

A South Carolina federal court found that Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s expert’s testimony did not satisfy its obligation to provide a damages calculation. Companion argued that its failure to disclose the precise method by which it calculated its alleged damages was immaterial because the method of damages calculation is the subject of expert evidence. But the Court held that mere reliance on expert evidence did not satisfy the disclosure requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

Defendants specifically requested Companion provide a computation of damages, including those under the reinsurance trust agreement it allegedly had to pay from its own funds due to a shortfall of collateral in the trust accounts. Companion referred instead to its expert testimony on the issue, and the Defendants moved to compel disclosure.

The Court agreed with the Defendants that an expert report does not stand in the shoes of the required disclosure under the Fed.R.Civ.P., and ordered Companion to provide an initial estimate as to each damage category (except punitive damages) and a general analysis as to how that figure was computed.

Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. U.S. Bank National Association, 3:15-cv-01300 (USDC D.S.C. June 24, 2016)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Discovery

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.