Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00167/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

OLLIE GODWIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv167-SRW

) (WO)

NATIONAL UNION FIRE )

INSURANCE COMPANY OF )

PITTSBURGH, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

By order entered November 28, 2007, this court denied defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant breached a contract of

insurance by failing to pay plaintiff’s claim arising from the 2004 collapse of plaintiff’s hip.

This action is presently before the court on defendant’s motion, filed on February 12, 2008

(Doc. # 36), for reconsideration of the court’s order denying summary judgment on this

claim, and plaintiff’s response to the motion (Doc. # 37). 

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant filed the affidavit of Dr.

Daniel W. Michael, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Michael concluded:

Because of the normal time that it takes for avascular necrosis to develop,

particularly to the point it had developed in his left hip, it is my opinion that

there is no relationship between the alleged October 2004 accident and the

onset and subsequent problems Mr. Godwin had in both hips from the

avascular necrosis of the femoral heads.

(Michael aff., Defendant’s Exhibit 5 to summary judgment motion). Plaintiff survived

summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because there was evidence of record –

Case 2:07-cv-00167-SRW Document 38 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 3
2

a letter from plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Barrington, to defendant’s claims examiner –

suggesting that plaintiff’s accidental injury “probably” aggravated plaintiff’s pre-existing

avascular necrosis, causing plaintiff’s hip to collapse. Defendant had itself introduced this

letter into evidence, and the court expressly concluded that by making no argument regarding

any limitation on the purposes for which the court could consider the exhibit, defendant had

waived any evidentiary objection to the exhibit for purposes of the summary judgment

motion. (See Memorandum Opinion, Doc. # 23 at p. 17 n. 9). Absent defendant’s waiver,

the letter – offered by plaintiff to prove the substance of Dr. Barrington’s opinion – would

have been excluded as hearsay. 

At the pretrial conference held in this matter on February 7, 2008, plaintiff’s counsel

admitted that she had identified no expert witness to testify at trial regarding the cause of

plaintiff’s 2004 hip injury and would not offer expert testimony. Thus, Dr. Barrington will

not testify at trial regarding the cause of plaintiff’s hip collapse. On the basis of plaintiff’s

judicial admission at the pretrial conference, defendant now moves for reconsideration of the

order denying summary judgment. Plaintiff responds that, while he conceded at the pretrial

conference that he would not produce a medical expert on the issue of causation of the

collapse of his left hip and the resulting surgery, he also explained to the court that “plaintiff

would testify concerning his personal knowledge of the symptoms he experienced due to his

medical condition.” (Doc. # 37). 

Because plaintiff admits that he has no expert medical testimony to offer, he cannot

produce sufficient evidence at trial to create an issue of fact for the jury regarding whether

Case 2:07-cv-00167-SRW Document 38 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 3
1

 The sole claim now remaining before the court is plaintiff’s breach of contract claim

arising from his 2003 injury. 

3

his occupational accident in 2004 caused his hip injury. In view of the uncontroverted

evidence of record regarding plaintiff’s avascular necrosis, plaintiff’s lay testimony regarding

his symptoms, regardless of its nature, would be insufficient to allow a jury to infer

reasonably that plaintiff’s hip collapse resulted from his 2004 occupational accident.

Plaintiff’s inability to present expert medical testimony is fatal to his claim. Cf. BlackGammons v. Zurich America Ins. Co., 2006 WL 47503, ** 3-4 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 9,

2006)(granting summary judgment for occupational accident insurer on plaintiff’s breach of

contract claim because plaintiff “presented no medical evidence whatsoever” that her claimed

injury did not stem from her degenerative disc disease). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion to reconsider the order denying summary judgment is

GRANTED, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s breach of

contract claim arising from plaintiff’s 2004 accident and injury is GRANTED, and that this

claim is, accordingly, DISMISSED with prejudice.1

DONE, this 12th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 2:07-cv-00167-SRW Document 38 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 3