WinCup, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denies the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a fire at WinCup’s manufacturing facility. The court holds that WinCup’s expert used a loss-calculation methodology inconsistent with the policy language and excludes his testimony as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, while permitting the possibility of fact testimony. The court denies the insurers’ motion for summary judgment because WinCup may still rely on the witness as a fact witness to establish its losses.

Holdings

1. The policies plainly and unambiguously require the calculation of business-interruption loss to begin with the value of lost production when the interruption occurs at a manufacturing facility.
2. Ardizzone's proposed testimony and calculations are inadmissible as expert testimony because his methodology was not reliably applied and his calculations did not conform to the governing policy language.
3. The court did not bar Ardizzone from testifying as a fact witness, even though it barred him from testifying as an expert.
4. The insurers were not entitled to summary judgment because Ardizzone's testimony was not entirely barred; he may testify as a fact witness, and the insurers acknowledged that summary judgment should be denied if his testimony was not excluded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the insurance policies' definition of Gross Earnings requires business-interruption losses to be calculated beginning with the value of lost production at the affected manufacturing facility.
2. Whether Glenn Ardizzone's proposed expert calculations satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
3. Whether the insurers were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that WinCup could not establish damages exceeding the policy deductibles without Ardizzone's testimony.

Disposition

other