The defendant brought a motion to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness, W. Steve Prince, from testifying regarding the commercial viability of an insurance policy.
The defendant argued Prince's opinion evidence was unnecessary and irrelevant, particularly concerning policy interpretation and profitability assumptions.
The court dismissed the motion, finding Prince's evidence potentially relevant to counter the defendant's assertion that such a policy was "absurd" in 1982, and also relevant if the legal remedy of rectification were required to assess the potential unconscionability of allowing the policy to remain in place.
