Opinion ID: 1101314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: permitting baymon's expert witnesses to testify regarding matters outside their areas of expertise constituted error.

Text: ¶ 48. GMAC contends that Baymon's experts were improperly allowed to testify concerning matters outside their areas of expertise. Baymon's contention that GMAC's conduct in obtaining CPI for her vehicle was wrongful rested almost entirely on the testimony of two witnesses who appeared as experts on her behalfDonald Sibbring and Thomas Myers. ¶ 49. A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify and offer opinions if his scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. M.R.E. 702. However, this Court will limit an expert's testimony to matters within his demonstrated area of expertise. Seal v. Miller, 605 So.2d 240, 247 (Miss. 1992). ¶ 50. This Court finds that these experts were improperly allowed by the trial judge to testify to areas outside of their stated fields of expertise. ¶ 51. Thomas Myers was admitted as an expert in the area of lending practices. However, he professed no expertise regarding the insurance industry generally or CPI in particular. Nevertheless, Myers was permitted, over GMAC's objections, to present testimony and opinions regarding MIC's premiums and profits. For example, Myers was permitted to testify that MIC earned $28 million in profits on CPI in one year, and that MIC's profits for that year had exceeded the amounts predicted in state rate filings. ¶ 52. Baymon's second expert, Donald Sibbring, was accepted as an expert on CPI over GMAC's objections. Sibbring's claim to expertise was based on his experience selling and servicing CPI policies to ten (10) to twelve (12) companies. Sibbring had not sold CPI policies since 1984, and had never sold CPI in Mississippi. Sibbring was allowed to testify that GMAC grossly overcharged Baymon for insurance, should not have received any commission and should have recovered the costs of tracking its finance charges from all customers. ¶ 53. This assignment of error is proper. The court allowed Baymon's experts to testify far outside their fields of expertise and as such committed reversible error.