bad faith. In so ruling, the court pointed out the insurer’s trial in reasoning that admitting the expert judge’s error would have bad faith requirements to mere “downgraded” negligence standards: while it was specifically the judge’s duty to define bad faith, the admissibility of evidence was irrelevant to such a duty. 3) In v. the court Jordan Allstate Insurance Company, admitted expert witness testimony offered by the insured regarding the violation of the Unfair Insurance insurer’s Practices Act. Although the insurer argued that the Act provide the basis for a bad faith the court “cannot action,” found that the claim was actually for common insured’s law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the insured was merely relying on the expert testimony about the violation of the Act the insurer’s “for purpose of providing supporting her contention evidence that Allstate breached the implied covenant by its actions.” 3. Standard or Customary Practice in the Industry. a. Some courts have held that opinions about standard practice in the industry are irrelevant because there is no duty to comply with standard industry practice. See Dinner v. 29 Fed. Appx. United Services Auto. Ass'n Cas. Ins. Co., 823, 827 (3d Cir. 2002)(unpublished)(insurer’s acts defined as or deceptive acts or in violation of the ‘unfair practices,’ Unfair Insurance Practices Act, are not necessarily ‘bad practices for purposes of bad faith insurance claims; faith’ therefore, bad faith expert testimony on insurer conduct, standard business practice or violation of regulatory law is irrelevant and prejudicial to the issue whether the claim was unreasonably denied.) b. Other courts have held that an expert can make reference to the law/regulations without running afoul of the rule that only the Court instructs the jury on the law. 1) v. 72 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Ford Allied Mut. Ins. Co., Cir.1996) (that witness for [the defendant] “expert was permitted to to issue of bad faith testify” “the ” by showing that the defendant relied on both “Iowa
insurer’s bad faith. In so ruling, the court pointed out the trial judge’s error in reasoning that admitting the expert would have “downgraded” bad faith requirements to mere negligence standards: while it was specifically the judge’s duty to define bad faith, the admissibility of evidence was irrelevant to such a duty. 3) In Jordan v. Allstate Insurance Company, the court admitted expert witness testimony offered by the insured regarding the insurer’s violation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. Although the insurer argued that the Act “cannot provide the basis for a bad faith action,” the court found that the insured’s claim was actually for common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the insured was merely relying on the expert testimony about the insurer’s violation of the Act “for the purpose of providing evidence supporting her contention that Allstate breached the implied covenant by its actions.” 3. Standard or Customary Practice in the Industry. a. Some courts have held that opinions about standard practice in the industry are irrelevant because there is no duty to comply with standard industry practice. See Dinner v. United Services Auto. Ass'n Cas. Ins. Co., 29 Fed. Appx. 823, 827 (3d Cir. 2002)(unpublished)(insurer’s acts defined as ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices,’ in violation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, are not necessarily ‘bad faith’ practices for purposes of bad faith insurance claims; therefore, bad faith expert testimony on insurer conduct, standard business practice or violation of regulatory law is irrelevant and prejudicial to the issue whether the claim was unreasonably denied.) b. Other courts have held that an expert can make reference to the law/regulations without running afoul of the rule that only the Court instructs the jury on the law. 1) Ford v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 72 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir.1996) (that “expert witness for [the defendant] was permitted to testify” to “the issue of bad faith ” by showing that the defendant relied on both “Iowa