## Facts

- Robert Trisko, a Minnesota jewelry designer, traveled to Florida shows with valuable jewelry inventory.
- After a Miami show, Trisko and an employee loaded two suitcases of jewelry into the trunk of a rental car and waited about 30 minutes for coworkers before driving to the airport.
- During the wait, they were near the car and then sat inside it; at the airport the trunk was opened and the two suitcases were missing.
- Insurers sought to deny coverage, asserting the loss was an excluded “mysterious disappearance” or “unexplained loss,” and arguing theft coverage required proof that Trisko or an employee was in or upon the car at the time of the taking.
- At trial, Trisko presented a Miami police detective as an expert on jewelry thefts; he opined the loss was consistent with professional, stealth theft methods.
- The expert partially relied on confidential informant information; the trial court admitted the opinion and instructed the jury to consider the informant statements only as a basis for the expert’s opinion, not as proof of what occurred.
- A jury found for Trisko, and judgment entered including prejudgment interest.
- Insurers appealed (expert-admissibility and sufficiency of evidence). Trisko cross-appealed (prejudgment interest calculation).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony that relied in part on confidential informant hearsay as a basis for the opinion.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the loss was a covered theft rather than an excluded mysterious disappearance or unexplained loss.
3. Whether the prejudgment interest award was correctly calculated.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Trisko.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the detective’s expert opinion; informant information was the type reasonably relied upon in criminal investigations, and the limiting instruction reduced unfair prejudice.
- The evidence, including expert testimony and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer theft and reject the policy exclusions.
- The prejudgment interest calculation was affirmed, rejecting Trisko’s cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may base an opinion on otherwise inadmissible information if it is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
- When an expert’s basis includes hearsay, the court may admit the opinion while limiting the jury’s use of the hearsay basis to explaining the opinion rather than proving the underlying facts.
- A theft may be proved by circumstantial evidence; lack of direct proof of the precise method or moment of taking does not necessarily require characterizing the loss as a “mysterious disappearance” or “unexplained loss.”
- Appellate review is deferential: evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a jury verdict stands if supported by reasonable inferences from the record.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a jury verdict requiring insurers to cover a jewelry loss, holding that expert testimony grounded partly in informant information was admissible with a proper limiting instruction and that circumstantial evidence permitted a finding of covered theft rather than an excluded disappearance, while also affirming the prejudgment interest award.


Sphere Drake Ins. PLC v. Trisko, 226 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2000)