Sphere Drake Insurance Co. v. Trisko

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Evidence

Evidenceexpert testimonyRule 703hearsay basis of expert opinionlimited purpose evidencerelevancesimilar crimes evidencemysterious disappearance

Facts

Trisko's jewelry was insured under a policy that excluded unexplained loss or mysterious disappearance and excluded vehicle losses unless Trisko or his employees were also in the vehicle. After a Miami show, Trisko and employee Eric Liberacki packed the jewelry into two suitcases, locked them in the trunk of a rented Buick, watched the car from outside for a time, then sat inside the car until others arrived. When the trunk was later opened at the airport, the suitcases and jewelry were gone, and the car showed no structural damage. At trial, Trisko offered Detective George Michael Crowley's expert testimony about jewel theft in Miami, informant statements, and Crowley's opinion that the loss was likely a theft rather than a mysterious disappearance.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting Crowley's expert opinion, the informant statements as part of the basis for that opinion, and evidence of similar Miami-area jewel thefts? Also, was the evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding that the loss was covered rather than excluded, and was Trisko entitled to compound prejudgment interest?

Rule

Expert testimony is admissible if the expert's specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, and doubts about usefulness generally should be resolved in favor of admissibility. Attacks on the factual basis or conclusions of the expert usually affect weight, not admissibility. An expert may rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay if it is the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, and may disclose those facts and data for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of the opinion, not for their truth. Relevant evidence is admissible when it tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, including evidence of similar crimes that makes a claimed theft explanation plausible. On judgment as a matter of law, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and gives that party all reasonable inferences; a verdict stands if reasonable jurors could differ. Where the governing statute provides that prejudgment interest shall be computed as simple interest per annum, compound interest is unavailable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Rowan, an art dealer from St. Louis, claims that rare bronze miniatures vanished from a locked cargo van after a weekend fair in New Orleans. At trial, she offers Detective Luis Mendez, who spent twelve years investigating high-end cargo theft in southern Louisiana, to testify that the loss was more consistent with a coordinated theft than with accidental misplacement, based on his knowledge of local theft methods and his investigation of this incident.

The insurer moves to exclude Mendez's opinion, arguing that jurors can decide for themselves whether the property was stolen and that his conclusion is debatable. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that expert testimony should be admitted if the expert's specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, and doubts about usefulness are generally resolved in favor of admissibility. It also held that attacks on the basis or conclusions of the opinion usually affect weight, not admissibility. Here, the detective's specialized experience and incident-specific investigation would help the jury assess whether the loss was a theft rather than an unexplained disappearance.