If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada insurance law lawyers represented Defendants sued by Plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay the claims that they made.

erry and Yvonne Brodeur live in Las Vegas, Nevada
and own a cabin in Kane County, Utah. Beginning on July
16, 2015, and continuing through at least July 16, 2016, the
Brodeurs insured their cabin through a homeowners policy
issued by Liberty Insurance Corporation. In May 2016, the
Brodeurs took Yvonne Brodeur’s son, Chase Stewart, to the
cabin along with Chase’s friend, Elias Meneses. The
Brodeurs own a Yamaha Rhino ATV, which they brought to
the cabin and allowed Meneses to ride in as a passenger with
Stewart driving. While Stewart drove the ATV on nearby
property not owned by the Brodeurs, the ATV flipped and
crushed Meneses’s arm.

Meneses sued the Brodeurs for his injuries in Nevada
state court. The Brodeurs sought coverage under the Liberty
homeowner’s insurance policy on the cabin, as well as a
Liberty homeowner’s insurance policy on their primary
residence in Las Vegas and a Liberty automobile insurance
policy. Liberty then filed this action in federal court, seeking
a judicial declaration that none of the Liberty policies
provided coverage for the Brodeurs’ claim. At summary
judgment, the district court found that neither the Las Vegas
homeowner’s policy nor the automobile policy covered the
Brodeur’s ATV accident claim.

On February 8, 2021, the district court held a bench trial
on the issue of whether the remaining Utah homeowner’s
policy covered the ATV accident. The court found that the
Utah homeowner’s policy generally excluded coverage for
an ATV accident occurring away from the property. But the
policy included an exception to the general exclusion
(hereinafter the “exception”), providing that the Brodeurs
could be entitled to coverage if the ATV was (1) a vehicle
not subject to motor vehicle registration and (2) used to
“service” the cabin. Liberty’s amended complaint identified
the exception.

Long before the trial, the Brodeurs served Liberty with
initial disclosures and included Jerry Brodeur as an
“individual likely to have discoverable information”
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). The disclosures stated that
Brodeur was likely to have information about “the claims of
the underlying case and the damages at issue.” Liberty never
objected to the Brodeurs’ initial disclosures and the Brodeurs
never supplemented them.

Years later, on the morning of the bench trial, Liberty
moved for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
52(c), arguing that the Brodeurs’ Rule 26 disclosures were
insufficient to put Liberty on notice of Jerry Brodeur’s
anticipated testimony and that the testimony concerning the
ATV was therefore barred by both the rule and Liberty’s
motion in limine. The district court allowed Jerry to testify
but informed the parties it would rule on the issue after trial.
Jerry testified about the ATV, its use to maintain the Utah
property (to remove wood, as a snowplow, to move dirt, and
to pick up food in town), and whether the vehicle was
registered or required to be registered. Jerry Brodeur was
the only witness who testified.

After trial, the district court—purporting to apply
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i)—excluded
much of Jerry’s testimony relevant to the Liberty policy by
sanctioning the Brodeurs under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(c)(1). The court used the sanction to limit the
testimony to “the facts and claims of the underlying state
court lawsuit,” and exclude testimony about the exception.1
Excluding that testimony led the district court to rule that the
Brodeurs failed to present sufficient “evidence to show [that]
the ATV was used to service the cabin at any time,” and that
“[b]ecause the Brodeurs have not satisfied their burden of
proof as to the second part of the exception (that the ATV
was used to service the cabin), I need not resolve whether
the ATV was subject to motor vehicle registration in any
jurisdiction.” The court ultimately concluded that
“[b]ecause there is no evidence [that] the ATV was used to
service the Brodeurs’ cabin, it does not fall within the
exception to the exclusion. Therefore, the Brodeurs are not
entitled to coverage under the Policy for the ATV accident
that is the subject of the state court lawsuit.” The Brodeurs
appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s
order imposing sanctions and remand this case to the district
court for a new trial.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: