--- title: "Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct" meta: "og:description": "The insurance expert was not allowed to provide the legal conclusion that Defendants actually acted in bad faith" "og:title": "Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The insurance expert was not allowed to provide the legal conclusion that Defendants actually acted in bad faith" --- # Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct Posted on July 30, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff Zachary Graling and his automobile insurance provider, Defendant United Services Automobile Association ("USAA"). In March 2024, Graling was injured when his stationary car was struck head-on by an uninsured hit-and-run driver who was entirely at fault. Graling was insured by Defendant United Services Automobile Association, and his insurance policy provided $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) and up to $25,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. USAA has paid out all $10,000 in PIP coverage and offered $16,505 to settle the UIM claim. But Graling has demanded the $25,000 policy limits and asserted that USAA has engaged in bad faith and mishandled his claim. Plaintiff sought to exclude or limit the testimony of Defendant's retained experts, [Austin D. McMillin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Austin-McMillin/1578002), a chiropractor and [Jerry Hartmann](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Gerald-Hartmann/1570213), a claims-handling expert. ![Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T174321_361.webp) ## **Chiropractic Expert Witness** [Austin D. McMillin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Austin-McMillin/1578002) is a highly trained health care provider in active full -time chiropractic practice, managing injury and non-injury spine-related disorders (SRD) and musculoskeletal conditions (MSK), with and without complications and co-morbidities. McMillin's education and training includes Doctor of Chiropractic (honors graduate), post-doctoral advanced functional rehabilitation, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, pre- and post-surgical SRD/MSK care, imaging and advanced diagnostics (indications and interpretations), independent medical evaluations, disability/impairment/apportionment/segregation, concussion evaluation and management, and photobiomodulation therapies. [Want to know more about the challenges Austin McMillin has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578002&pId=3). ## Insurance Expert Witness [Gerald "Jerry" Hartmann](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Gerald-Hartmann/1570213) has 37 years of technical, managerial and senior leadership roles within the insurance industry. [Discover more cases with Gerald Hartmann as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1570213&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### Austin D. McMillin Plaintiff asserted four objections to McMillin's testimony. First, Plaintiff argued that McMillin's opinions are invalid, because a chiropractor "may not render diagnostic or causation opinions [without] personally conducting a physical examination as part of a chiropractic differential diagnosis." Second, Plaintiff argued that McMillin's "opinions exceed the statutory scope of chiropractic practice," as defined by Washington law. Third, Plaintiff argued that McMillin's "opinions rest on personal belief and subjective inference, not professional methods." Fourth, Plaintiff argued that "large portions" of McMillin's testimony concerns his "criticism of the thoroughness and documentation of Plaintiff's treating chiropractor." Here, Plaintiff's challenge to McMillin's testimony here is a [_Daubert_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)__challenge camouflaged as a motion_ in limine_. Plaintiff gives the game away by quoting passages from McMillin's expert report, then concluding that "these statements are not proper expert opinions under the Federal Rule of Evidence." Plaintiff also made a non-_Daubert_ objection to the relevance of McMillin's criticism of "the thoroughness of and documentation of Plaintiff's treating chiropractor." Plaintiff argued that "a chiropractor may not function as a regulatory evaluator of another practitioner's documentation, particularly where he has not examined the patient." Frustratingly, however, Plaintiff provided no authority to substantiate this assertion, and the Court will not endeavor to locate any for him. Moreover, the Court disagreed with Plaintiff's framing of the issue. For one thing, a McMillin is not serving as a "regulatory" evaluator, a description that suggests, if not presumes, some degree of governmental authority. For another, as another court in this District has found, a "consulting chiropractor," like McMillin here, is charged with "screening for chiropractic care that was either excessive or not absolutely needed. . . . it is an evaluation not of plaintiffs, but of practitioners." Evaluating another practitioner's documentation is precisely what the Court expects McMillin to do, and it is thus relevant testimony. ### Gerald "Jerry" Hartmann First, Plaintiff argued that Hartmann's testimony comprises "legal conclusions, not expert analysis." Second, Plaintiff complained that Hartmann's testimony's "narrative descriptions of the file and repeated praise of USAA's personnel" represents "vouching, not expert testimony." Third, Plaintiff argued that Hartmann's opinions are "untethered to this claim file." Fourth, Plaintiff argued that Hartmann's testimony "contradicts the Court's rulings or minimizes preserved disputes." Fifth, Plaintiff argued that "Hartmann's reports contain generalized references to his experience with other insurers and industry practices but no case-specific foundation for his conclusions." Sixth, Plaintiff asserted that "Hartmann provided no identifiable methodology." The ultimate issue in this case is not whether Defendant's conduct comported with industry standards—it is whether Defendant acted in bad faith, an issue that is informed by an evaluation of the reasonableness of the insurer's conduct, but not ultimately and conclusively determined by it. To that end, Hartmann's characterizations of Defendant's conduct—e.g., that it was "thorough" or "appropriate"—are excluded. But Hartmann's evaluations of Defendant's conduct with respect to industry standards are permissible. Additionally, as to Plaintiff's overarching [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.)-based arguments regarding Hartmann's methodology and expertise, the Court agreed with Defendant that these are untimely Daubert arguments that are inappropriate here. Further, as to Plaintiff's contentions that Hartmann has not provided "case-specific foundation for his conclusions" the Court disagreed. Hartmann has listed the records he reviewed when drawing his conclusions and Hartmann has discussed the step-by-step narrative of Defendant's handling of Plaintiff's claim. That "USAA paid the insured $7,001.73 on 4/18/2024 for the total loss evaluation," and that "there was some confusion in the odometer reading and a stop was placed on the $7,001.73 check" are not "generalized references." As to Plaintiff's assertion that Hartmann is drawing on "unspecified 'experience'" to inform his opinion, it is simply not an accurate representation of Hartmann's report. Hartmann has provided his qualifications, his work experience, and a list of 52 cases in which he has provided expert testimony. ## **Held** - The Court denied Plaintiff's motion _in limine_to exclude or limit the testimony of Austin D. McMillin. - The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion _in limine_to exclude or limit the testimony of Jerry Hartmann. ## **Key Takeaway** A claims-adjustment expert may testify that an insurer's conduct comported with industry standards, provided that the expert does not "reach a legal conclusion that Defendants actually acted in bad faith (i.e., an ultimate issue of law)." ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Graling V. United Services Automobile Association | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 2:24cv1798 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Western | | Order Date: | July 27, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T195621_2651.webp) [**Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct/aviation-maintenance-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-agency-relationship-)![Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T174321_361.webp) [**Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct)![Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T200732_639.webp) [**Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure)![Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T180748_5521.webp) [**Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability)![Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T202402_4131.webp) [**Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct/transportation-safety-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-non-preventability-of-the-crash)