Excluding Expert Testimony the Jury Already Heard

Robert Ambrogi – IMS Expert Services – December 31, 2013 You’ve heard the saying, “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.” Well, how about expert testimony the jury wasn’t supposed to hear? Does a judge’s instruction to disregard the testimony put the toothpaste back where it belonged? The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals… Continue reading Excluding Expert Testimony the Jury Already Heard

How Likable Should an Expert Witness Be?

Billy L. Akin – December 6, 2013 Credibility…..a vital ingredient of an expert witness. How about “likability”? Is this trait involved in the effectiveness of presenting testimony? Hastening to my conclusion, I think likability is crucial. Does this overall perception of another human not make a difference? When “your honor” puts on the robe and… Continue reading How Likable Should an Expert Witness Be?

Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

Heather Anderson – December 11, 2013 In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify.  See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National… Continue reading Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

A Short Summary of the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act

Anne K. McMichael, Esq. For 12 years, the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et. Seq.) or “CDARA”, has governed how construction defect litigation and arbitration actions are conducted in Colorado.  While portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts… Continue reading A Short Summary of the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act