--- title: "Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards" meta: "og:description": "The insurance expert was barred from testifying due to her inability to properly interpret Oklahoma law" "og:title": "Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The insurance expert was barred from testifying due to her inability to properly interpret Oklahoma law" --- # Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards Posted on April 3, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler This action arises from an insurance claim related to a vehicle fire that occurred on May 31, 2024, in Arkansas while Plaintiff Anthony Nicholas was driving from Tennessee to Oklahoma. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant Progressive Direct Insurance Company that same day. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to handle the claim in good faith and improperly subjected him to a fraud investigation. Also, Plaintiff retained [Deborah C. Rankin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Deborah-Rankin/1566711) as an expert related to Progressive’s handling of Plaintiff’s comprehensive coverage claim. Rankin’s expert report outlined her opinions on standards she asserted formed the basis for properly handling insurance claims and Progressive’s failure to follow those standards. Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Rankin. ## **Insurance Expert Witness** [Deborah C. Rankin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Deborah-Rankin/1566711) worked as a licensed insurance adjuster for thirty-three years, retiring from State Farm Insurance in 2016. [Get the full story on challenges to Deborah Rankin’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1566711&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** #### _**I. Rankin is not qualified to provide expert testimony in this case**_ While Rankin stated that she handled hundreds of property claims earlier in her career, Defendant noted that the last such claim she handled was in 1995. The Court found that Rankin is likely not qualified to offer expert testimony in this case. Rankin has been admitted as an expert in another case in this district, though that case dealt with an action for bad faith breach of a UM/UIM motorist policy. This case doesn’t involve a UM/UIM claim, but rather a comprehensive property claim. The Court is unconvinced that Plaintiff has met his burden to show that Rankin’s experience is sufficiently timely to qualify her as an expert in testifying to the claims handling process for comprehensive claims such as this. In reviewing the cases in which Rankin represents she’s provided expert testimony, it appears none of these cases were related to comprehensive claims like the one in this case. None of this is to say that Rankin might not be qualified to testify as an expert in a UM/UIM case—indeed, she has been—but that isn’t this case. #### _**II. Rankin’s opinions are not reliable**_ Even if the Court had found Rankin qualified to opine on the issues in this case, the Court did not find Rankin’s methodology and reasoning reliable, for the simple reason that it was not clear to the Court how Rankin arrived at her reported conclusions. Rankin’s report failed to cite any specific industry standards to which insurers were to be held. Rankin vaguely stated that “insurance standards are based on multiple sources that work together to result in best practices.” She went on to say that those standards were based on state law, state case law, industry training, and best practices, but other than a cursory cite to the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, Rankin did not further develop the foundation for the industry standards with which she contrasted Progressive’s actions. Further, the Court was uncomfortable admitting Rankin as an expert because, as the Defendant noted in her report, she misstated Oklahoma law in arguing that insurance adjusters were required to be licensed in Oklahoma and meet venue-specific training requirements. #### _**III. Rankin’s testimony will not assist the triers of fact to determine the facts in issue**_ Finally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how Rankin’s testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The question in this case is whether Progressive “unreasonably, and in bad faith,” withheld payment of Plaintiff’s claim. Bad faith is a common law tort that requires the judgment of “reasonable, prudent people.” The jury will be called upon to consider the facts of the case and apply its own conceptions of reasonableness to them in rendering its verdict. The jury is not required to determine the reasonableness of Progressive’s actions with respect to any industry standards. That isn’t to say that failure to comport with industry standards can never be probative of bad faith, but when those “industry standards” are based on amorphous, vague, and sometimes incorrect references to supposedly governing laws, the testimony is more likely to confuse the jury than aid it. ## **Held** The Court granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Deborah Rankin. ## **Key Takeaway** Plaintiff has failed to show that Rankin’s opinions reflect a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case due to her inability to properly interpret Oklahoma law related to adjuster licensing. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on the Behavior of Wheelchairs](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T203819.018.jpg) [**Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on the Behavior of Wheelchairs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards/mechanical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-behavior-of-wheelchairs)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T192250.590.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Industry Standards**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards)![Credit Reporting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Intentions](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T160159.490.jpg) [**Credit Reporting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Intentions**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards/credit-reporting-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-intentions)![Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-03T135126.047.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Policies**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards/consumer-credit-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-policies)![Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-02T115237.879.jpg) [**Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-industry-standards/marketing-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-consumer-reaction)