Insurance Expert Permitted to Testify Despite Lacking Specific Certifications
Posted on July 31, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiffs Diane Watts, Anthony Watts, and Adam Pizzitola (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) purchased car insurance policies from Defendants Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company.
In relevant part, the policies contained an Optional Transportation Expenses Coverage endorsement which provided that, in the event of an accident, LMPIC would pay the expense of a rental vehicle while repairs were performed on the damaged vehicle. If the vehicle was declared a total loss, then LMPIC would pay for a rental vehicle for the “period of time reasonably required” to replace the total loss vehicle, up to a maximum of 30 days, or $900.
Each Plaintiff alleged that after a car accident in which they received access to and payment for a rental vehicle, Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company prematurely terminated the rental car coverage, despite the contractual obligation to first determine the amount of time a policyholder reasonably needs to replace their totaled vehicle.
On May 16, 2025, LMIC filed a motion to strike and exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Jay Angoff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2) and Rule of Evidence 702.
Insurance Expert Witness
Jay Angoff is an attorney with a long career working in the insurance industry. At various times over the past 40 years, he has served as the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Missouri, as the Deputy Insurance Commissioner for the State of New Jersey, as the Director of the U.S. Health Care Financing Administration’s Private Health Insurance Group, and as the Director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants contended that the Court should strike the Angoff Report under Rule 702 and Daubert because Angoff is not qualified to render the opinions in his report and because Angoff’s opinions are not reliable.
Qualifications
Defendants argued that Angoff is not qualified to render these opinions because he “lacks any education, training, or experience in the field of accounting or financial advisory, or reinsurance” and has no relevant professional certifications or degrees.
Though Angoff has not served as an expert specifically on financial statements, given this extensive history upon which he renders his opinions, the Court concluded that he is appropriately qualified in this case. The Defendants’ attacks on Angoff’s lack of qualifications or specific certifications are an appropriate line of inquiry for cross-examination, but such bases do not disqualify him from serving as an expert in this case.
Reliability
Sufficiency of the Data
Defendants argued that Angoff’s opinions related to LMPIC’s reserves are unreliable because they are based on plainly erroneous assumptions and cherry-picked facts.
Angoff’s opinions are predominantly based off LMPIC’s and LMIC’s 2023 accounting statements, from which Angoff has drawn various conclusions based on his experience in the insurance industry reviewing and analyzing financial statements.
There is no dispute that the accounting statements and the other record evidence considered by Angoff are a reliable basis on which he could form an opinion. While Defendants contended that Angoff’s opinions are based on mistaken assumptions that account only for net numbers and ignore gross numbers, such a challenge is not an appropriate basis for exclusion at this junction. While it is entirely possible that Angoff’s reading of the accounting statements is incorrect, the Court cannot draw that conclusion because would it be appropriate for the Court to do so.
Legal Conclusions
Defendants also argued that Angoff’s opinions that LMPIC’s regulator would not permit it to pay a $45 million judgment and that LMPIC does not “act independently” of LMIC are conclusions without factual basis. Defendants further characterized this second conclusion as a legal opinion.
The Court agreed that some statements in the report are inadmissible conclusions of law. Angoff may testify regarding what, in his experience, a regulator would consider in analyzing an insurance company’s availability and source of funds to pay a judgment, but not the conclusion of law as to whether LMPIC’s regulator would permit LMPIC to pay a $45 million judgment. Similarly, Agnoff may testify as to industry practice in structuring and operating insurance companies and the relationship created in the reinsurance context, but not the conclusion of law that LMPIC does not “act independently” of LMIC.
Bias
Defendants also attacked Angoff as an unreliable expert due to alleged bias. Specially, Defendants argued that, “until recently, [Angoff] was a Plaintiff’s class action lawyer who sued insurance companies for a living, and is not independent of Plaintiffs’ counsel given his prior relationship with them.”
However, an expert’s bias goes to the weight or credibility of his testimony. As such, the Court held that Angoff’s potential bias does not necessitate his exclusion.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to strike and exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert Jay Angoff.
Key Takeaway:
As long as an expert’s scientific testimony rests upon ‘good grounds, based on what is known,’ it should be tested by the adversary process—competing expert testimony and active cross-examination—rather than excluded from jurors’ scrutiny for fear that they will not grasp its complexities or satisfactorily weigh its inadequacies.
Angoff’s report is grounded in his experience regarding insurance companies’ financial statements and regulatory requirements. The report and record together contain sufficient explanation of Angoff’s methodological choices and reasoning to overcome a Daubert challenge in this posture.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Watts Et Al V. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv12845 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Massachusetts |
| Order Date: | July 29, 2025 |
