## Facts

- Joseph Falzone’s home was destroyed by fire and was covered by a fire insurance policy issued by American Universal Insurance Company.
- American Universal denied coverage, contending the fire was intentionally set (arson), and sought a declaratory judgment of no liability.
- At trial, state fire marshal Ricker testified as an expert that the fire was of human origin.
- Ricker’s opinion relied on his own observations and on information from other fire marshals who inspected the furnace and heating system and reported those systems did not cause the fire.
- The other marshals were more experienced than Ricker in examining furnaces and heating systems.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may give an opinion partly based on information from other investigators (including hearsay-type reports) if that information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment for American Universal.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in admitting Ricker’s opinion under Rule 703.
- The court rejected the argument that the opinion was inadmissible merely because part of its basis came from other marshals’ reports.
- The court concluded there was no abuse of discretion or unfair prejudice warranting exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data “perceived by or made known” to the expert, including information that is itself inadmissible, if it is the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
- Experts may reasonably rely on specialized work performed by other qualified professionals as part of forming an overall technical opinion.
- Hearsay-type materials used as an expert’s basis are not necessarily admitted for their truth; they may be referenced to explain the foundation of the expert’s opinion, subject to the court’s control and Rule 403 limits.
- Admission of expert opinion testimony under Rule 703 is reviewed largely for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a verdict for the insurer, ruling that a fire investigator’s expert opinion on incendiary origin was properly admitted under Rule 703 even though it relied in part on other fire officials’ findings about the heating system, because such reliance is standard in the field and did not produce unfair prejudice.


Am. Universal Ins. Co. v. Falzone, 644 F.2d 65 (1st Cir. 1981)