--- title: "Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Reimbursement Allocation" meta: "og:description": "The law and legal expert was barred from opining on the proper allocation of reimbursement costs" "og:title": "Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Reimbursement Allocation" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The law and legal expert was barred from opining on the proper allocation of reimbursement costs" --- # Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Reimbursement Allocation Posted on May 5, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company sued SVO Building One, LLC for reimbursement of $5.5 million (before accrued interest) paid in defense of claims that were not even potentially covered under the applicable insurance policy. SVO filed a _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ motion to exclude the testimony of Navigators’ expert witness [André E. Jardini](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Andr%C3%A9-Jardini/1546765). ## **Law And Legal Expert Witness** [André Emilio Jardini](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Andr%C3%A9-Jardini/1546765) specializes in complex litigation, and his experience in this area is wide-ranging and diverse, including trial work in insurance bad faith and coverage cases, employment and wrongful termination cases, intellectual property, business torts, and real estate litigation. In his career, Jardini has been the principal trial attorney in more than 50 lawsuits tried to jury verdict, each with exposure in the six-to-eight figure range. He also has been involved in environmental litigation, federal and multidistrict litigation, products litigation, and toxic tort litigation. [Want to know more about the challenges André Jardini has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1546765&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** Navigators proffered Jardini as an expert to opine on the proper reimbursement allocation for costs paid by Navigators in the Underlying Action. SVO contended that the Court should exclude Jardini because his report is unreliable and irrelevant, as Jardini “ignored the applicable standard for determining whether attorneys’ fees and expenses may be reimbursed to an insurer set forth by the California Supreme Court.” The Court agreed that Jardini is an improper expert under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.) because his analysis incorrectly applied the operative legal standard and was thus irrelevant. Jardini’s report explained that he “identified services that were possibly partially related to a defamation claim. In making this analysis, he had in mind the overwhelming import in the case of the various trade secret claims as opposed to the defamation claim as shown by SVO.” But the standard is not simply whether attorney time is more likely than not related to defamation and it does not take into consideration the “overwhelming import” of a claim. Rather, the proper question is whether attorney time more likely than not “can be allocated solely to the claims that are not even potentially covered.” Jardini’s application of a standard of “overwhelming import” to his assessment of costs attributable to the covered claims plainly departed from the established standards. Thus, the Court found that Jardini’s opinion is not only unhelpful, it is irrelevant as it does not have “a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry.” ## **Held** The Court granted SVO’s motion to exclude the testimony of André Jardini. ## **Key Takeaway** Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful. Nothing in either _Daubert_ or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the _ipse dixit_ of the expert. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Safety Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Display Shelf](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-06T181721.406.jpg) [**Safety Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Display Shelf**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation/safety-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-display-shelf)![Correctional Healthcare Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Physical Symptoms](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-06T155501.695.jpg) [**Correctional Healthcare Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Physical Symptoms**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation/correctional-healthcare-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-physical-symptoms)![Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Reimbursement Allocation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-05T210454.071.jpg) [**Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Reimbursement Allocation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation)![Civil Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Speed Bumps](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-05T193942.518.jpg) [**Civil Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Speed Bumps**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation/civil-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-speed-bumps)![Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Housekeeping Standards](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-05T153125.228.jpg) [**Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Housekeeping Standards**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-reimbursement-allocation/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-housekeeping-standards)