Opinion ID: 681237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Testimony Of The Other Insureds

Text: 4 Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of three other insureds who claimed that Federated had made misrepresentations to them, similar to the ones allegedly made by Dale Williams to Breshears, regarding the scope of coverage under the Commercial General Liability part of their policies. Such evidence would be admissible if it met the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 406 for habit or routine practice. 1 Plaintiff, however, did not proffer sufficient evidence to suggest that Federated's routine practice was to represent that its insureds would be covered under the CGL parts for the type of event that occurred here. Federated has entered into numerous insurance contracts. The three similar incidents alleged by plaintiff clearly are numerically inadequate to be considered probative evidence of a routine practice on Federated's part. Thus they are not relevant to a question of intent on the part of Federated or Williams to misrepresent coverage in the meeting with Breshears. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in refusing to admit the testimony of the three witnesses as evidence of habit, routine practice or intent.