Navigators Insurance Company v. Goyard, Inc.

Background

Navigators issued Goyard a marine cargo insurance policy covering goods during shipping and while held in certain specified locations. On June 2, 2020, goods held at Goyard’s location at 20 East 63rd Street in New York were damaged and/or stolen. Goyard submitted an insurance claim. Navigators then brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the losses were not covered because of policy language concerning “Strikes, Riots, and Civil Commotions,” or “SR&CC.” Goyard contested Navigators’ interpretation and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaration that the policy covered the losses and alleging breach of contract.

The Expert Report

Navigators served a report prepared by Robert V. Comegys, who described his 28 years of experience in the insurance industry and his involvement in modernizing language used in marine insurance policies. The report interpreted multiple provisions of Goyard’s policy, including storage coverage and exclusions for risks covered by the policy’s Free of Capture and Seizure and SR&CC warranties. It concluded that the policy did not cover losses caused by rioting and looting at Goyard’s location. The report also assumed that the merchandise had been stolen by looters participating in riots, a factual issue the parties disputed.

Goyard moved to strike the report. Goyard did not challenge Comegys’s qualifications or the reliability of his methods; the dispute concerned whether the report was relevant and would help the fact-finder under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Legal Standard

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to testify when the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the fact-finder understand evidence or decide a disputed fact, the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, and reliable principles and methods have been reliably applied. Courts act as gatekeepers to ensure that expert testimony is relevant and reliable. An expert may address factual matters within the jury’s role, but may not give legal opinions or ultimate legal conclusions. Interpreting an insurance agreement is a question of law.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Comegys’s report was essentially a legal analysis of the policy. The report quoted and analyzed policy provisions, explained how they interacted, and concluded that SR&CC losses were excluded while merchandise was stored at the specified location. The court held that this analysis could not help the fact-finder because it was the same contract interpretation that the court itself would perform.

The court also rejected Comegys’s conclusions that no claim was payable and that the policy provided no coverage for losses caused by rioting and looting. Those statements improperly applied legal principles to the facts and expressed ultimate legal conclusions. The court further stated that a separate assertion about standard practice in the cargo-insurance market was inadmissible because Navigators had not shown that the practice was relevant to an issue in the case.

Disposition

The court granted Goyard’s motion to strike Navigators’ expert report of Robert V. Comegys. The opinion ruled on the report’s admissibility and did not decide whether Goyard’s losses were covered under the policy.