* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51232

Summary Calendar

KENNETH D. MALONE; OUIDA MALONE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

STATE FARM LLOYDS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-1041)

November 22, 1999

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth D. Malone and Ouida Malone appeal an adverse partial summary

judgment, an adverse Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 jud gment as a m atter of law, and several

evidentiary rulings in their action against State Farm Lloyds Insurance Company. For

the reasons assigned we affirm.

Background

The Malones filed a c laim under their homeowner’s insurance policy for

cracking in the foundation of their home. State Farm denied coverage after an1 Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

, 509 U.S. 579

(1993).

2 investigation reflected that the cracking resulted from a settling due to natural cyclical

soil expansion and contraction which was not covered by the policy. A small leak in

a condensate line was found, however, and State Farm paid the cost of this repair. The

money was used by the Malones to install piers to stabilize the foundation.

The Malones sued State Farm in state court, urging claims for breach of contract,

and for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Insurance Code.

State Farm removed the action to federal court. In due course the trial judge granted

a partial summary judgment to State Farm on the extra contractual claims, limited the

expert testimony offered by the Malones, 1 and, at close of the Malones’ case-in-chief,

granted a Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law. This appeal followed.

Analysis

The Malones contend that the district court erred in restricting the testimony of

their expert witness, Per Schneider, in ex cluding the testimony of Bob Dodd, and in

placing a time limit on the cross examination of State Farm’s expert witness. In

addition they contend that summary judgment was inappr opriate as to som e of the

Malones’ extra contractual claims because they were not raised in the motion for

summary judgment.

The trial court did not err in excluding portions of Schneider’s testimony because

it did not accurately re flect the data upon which it purported to rely and was not

sufficiently grounded in fact. Under the teachings of D aubert it was properly

excluded. The same applies to Schneider’s proposed testimony on damages. Nor did2 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(e); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b), (c)(1).

3 Sims v. ANR Freight Systems, Inc. , 77 F.3d 846 (5 th Cir. 1996).

4 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

3 the court err in limiting testimony not tendered in Schneider’s deposition, but

consisting of newly formed opinions ap p arently based on data developed after the

deposition.

We perceive no error in the exclusion of Dodd’s testimony. The Malones

contend that the exclusion was based on Dodd’s failure t o comply with three

subpoenas. They claim that his failure to appear for the deposition was the result of

mutual scheduling conflicts. It is clear from the court’s December 18 order, however,

that Dodd was excluded because t he Malones’ attorney had misled State Farm into

believing that Dodd would not testify. The exclusion of Dodd’s testimony as unfair

surprise was an appropriate response to the Malones’ failure to designate their

witnesses and supplement their designations. 2

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s placement of a limitation on

cross examination of State Farm’s expert. We perceive no harm to the Malones’ case

caused by this limitation, nor do the Malones describe any in brief. 3

Finally, the trial court neither erred in granting judgment to State Farm under

Rule 50, nor in its partial summary judgment on the extra contractual claims. 4

The district court is AFFIRMED.