Opinion ID: 27181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nationwide defend him.

Text: In August 1999, Andrea Woodcock, the daughter of Scofield C. and Janice Berthelot, Based on diversity jurisdiction, Nationwide suffered injuries when Timothy Waaga crashed filed the instant declaratory judgment against a boat into another boat operated by Donald Scofield Berthelot, Janice Berthelot, Waaga, Snyder. Janice Berthelot held the title to and Woodcock, requesting the court to declare Waaga’s boat and had given him permission to the defendants ineligible for coverage. After a use it. bench trial, the court found that the policy excluded coverage for Woodcock’s bodily in- Nationwide insured the boat under a policy juries and ruled that Nationwide did not have issued to the Berthelots in 1976. The policy, an obligation to defend Waaga, should not pay however, did not cover family members who any judgments rendered against Waaga, and live in the household and suffer bodily should not pay any claims by Woodcock injuries.1 At the time of the accident, against Waaga. Woodcock had resided at the Berthelot household since April 1999 to assist her II. mother in caring for her father after his heart John Kornegay testified that he believed the surgery. Woodcock maintained a trailer on Mississippi Supreme Court should strike down their property, which she sometimes slept in. the family household exclusion; he averred that She had a separate post office box where she the state’s abrogation of interspousal immunity received most of her mail. She belonged to logically requires invalidating family household travel and camping clubs that entitled her to exclusion clauses. The district court excluded park her trailer and reside at various parks and the evidence under FED. R. EVID. 702 because camping areas for extended periods of time. it would not “assist the trier of fact.” We review a decision to admit or exclude expert After the accident, Janice Berthelot sued testimony for abuse of discretion.2 The party Waaga in state court for negligence, asserting error must prove “substantial requesting compensatory and punitive prejudice.” Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. damages. The Berthelots made claims under Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. their homeowner’s insurance policy for 2000). Woodcock’s injuries. Waaga requested that We do not need to delve into subtle questions about the admissibility of expert 1 The policy begins by defining the term “in- sured” with reference to family members sharing a residence: 2 “‘Insured’ means you and the following Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 136 who live in your household: a. your (1997) (“We have held that abuse of discretion is relatives.” the proper standard of review of a district court’s evidentiary rulings.”); Waco Int’l, Inc. v. KHK The policy then contains the following Scaffolding Houston, Inc., 278 F.3d 523, 528 (5th exclusion: “2. Coverage ESSPersonal liability does Cir. 2002) (“Review of a district court’s admission not apply to: . . .f. bodily injury to an insured as or exclusion of evidence is for abuse of defined in definitions 3a and 3b.” discretion.”) (citation omitted). 2 testimony on legal matters.3 The district court state law de novo. Doddy, 101 F.3d at 461. correctly decided to reject Kornegay’s testimony for the simple reason that it would A. not “assist the trier of fact.” See FED. R. CIV. Courts should give effect to a “clear and P. 702. The district court and we are bound to unambiguous” insurance policy or contract, follow the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ford, 734 existing precedent, Doddy v. Oxy, USA, Inc., So. 2d 173, 176 (Miss. 1999), and should con101 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 1996), so it is strue ambiguous or unclear terms against the useless for an expert to speculate on what that drafter of the contract, usually the insurance court should in fact do, United States v. Nine company, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Million Forty-One Thousand Five Hundred Scitzs, 394 So. 2d 1371, 1372-73 (Miss. Ninety-Eight Dollars and Sixty-Eight Cents, 1981). An insurance policy is ambiguous if 163 F.3d 238, 255 (5th Cir. 1999). people can reasonably subject it to more than one interpretation. Universal Underwriters,