Where the court had no "definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been committed," a highly deferential standard required it to affirm the magistrate's rulings that two of the insured's witnesses were not qualified as experts but could testify as fact witnesses, deny the insured's request to exclude one of the insurer's experts and request to late-designate additional experts, and find no error in the magistrate's determination that a genuine issue of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login