Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured seeking to compel defendant to indemnify it for expenses associate with clean-up of environmental hazards found on plaintiff’s property. Relevant policy contained exclusion for damage arising out of chemical leaks or discharges, and Dist. Ct. could properly grant defendant’s motion to strike testimony from plaintiff’s expert, who asserted that chemical zones on property were formed by sudden and accidental chemical discharges based on volume of spill, which would make said spills covered under policy. Expert failed to show how his expertise or methodology led to his conclusion that chemical discharges were sudden and accidental. As such, without expert testimony, plaintiff failed to show that instant chemical spills were covered by policy.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Expert Witness