Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit found that the insured's testimony that she expected her loss to be covered was harmless. Gordon v .Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13507 (3rd Cir. July 26, 2017).

    After a storm, portions of the stone facade of the insured's home collapsed. Allstate denied coverage because her policy was limited to "sudden and accident physical loss to the property" caused by a named peril, including windstorm. Allstate contended that the damage to the home was caused by neglect, not the storm.

    The insured sued. Allstate filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the insured from testifying about her reasonable expectations of coverage. The district court denied the motion. At trial, the insured testified that when applying for coverage, she told the insurance agent that "I wanted to be covered." The jury returned a verdict for the insured, finding that she had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the collapse of the exterior wall was a sudden and accidental physical loss caused by a windstorm as covered under her policy. 

    The Third Circuit determined there was no error in allowing the insured's testimony. Even if the testimony should have been excluded under Pennsylvania law, errors in the admission of the evidence was harmless and did not constitute grounds for a new trial. Any error was harmless because the insured presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that the collapse of the home was a "sudden and accidental physical loss caused by a windstorm." The insured presented expert testimony from an engineer who opined that the collapse was a sudden, catastrophic event and that "the wind damage was the final nail in the coffin that caused the collapse."  

    Because the insured presented ample evidence to support the determination that the loss was caused by a windstorm – and therefore was covered by the policy – it was highly probable that the jury would have reached that same result even without the insured's reasonable expectation testimony.