## Facts

- Faith Campbell and her three children lived (Jan. 1993–Mar. 1995) in a Bronx apartment building owned by Kormal and Tajwattie Singh.
- In 1994, blood tests showed the children had elevated blood lead levels, later increasing further; the injuries were attributed to lead-based paint in the apartment.
- Metropolitan issued successive liability policies covering the building, including a policy period from Sept. 5, 1992 to Sept. 5, 1993 (the disputed period).
- The parties entered a stipulation under which Metropolitan conceded coverage and agreed to pay policy limits for two other policy periods, but disputed whether injuries occurred during the 1992–93 period.
- A bench trial was held solely to determine whether covered injuries began during the 1992–93 policy period; plaintiffs presented expert medical testimony tying injury onset to that period, which Metropolitan challenged under Rule 702/Daubert principles.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting plaintiffs’ expert testimony on when the children’s lead-related injuries began.
2. Whether prejudgment interest could be awarded on the additional policy limits for the 1992–93 period.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the finding that the children suffered covered injuries during the 1992–93 policy period and upheld admission of the expert testimony.
- The Second Circuit reversed the award of prejudgment interest on the $300,000 policy-limit recovery.
- Judgment left intact the $300,000 principal award for the 1992–93 period but eliminated prejudgment interest.

## Legal Principles

- In a bench trial, evidentiary gatekeeping decisions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and related reliability standards are reviewed deferentially; disputes about certainty often go to weight rather than admissibility when the opinion rests on accepted medical literature, regulatory guidance, and exposure history.
- A district court’s factual finding that injury occurred within an insurance policy period will be upheld absent clear error when supported by competent expert proof and stipulated exposure timelines.
- Under New York law principles governing prejudgment interest, interest is generally inappropriate where the insurer’s obligation to pay additional policy limits was not “due and payable” at a fixed pre-judgment time and became fixed only upon a judicial coverage determination.

## Conclusion

The court upheld coverage for the disputed policy period based on admissible expert evidence that injuries began during that period, but disallowed prejudgment interest because the insurer’s duty to pay those additional limits was not fixed until the coverage dispute was resolved.


Campbell v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 239 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001)