Supra Society, The parents of a baby boy who was brain damaged at birth retained you to be their son\'s lawyer. It\'s been four years of long hours, hard work, and sleepless nights. Finally, after overcoming the multitude of obstacles facing a medical Supra Society malpractice plaintiff, the day of reckoning is near. Your life care planner has evaluated the financial needs to care for the child for the rest of his life: $85 million. Your economist has reduced that figure to present cash value: $17 million. On the eve of trial, expert disclosures are exchanged. In reviewing the defendant doctor\'s disclosure, you see that she has disclosed an \"annuitist\" who will testify concerning the cost of an annuity to Supra Society fund the plaintiff\'s lifetime care. A few calls to colleagues and a review of this \"expert\'s\" prior testimony lead you to believe that the annuist will opine that an annuity can be purchased for $4 million to fund the life care plan. Suddenly, the potential value of your case has suffered a fourfold decline. Now what do you do?
\"Annuitists\" are often disclosed as expert witnesses by defendants in personal injury cases. These experts, who are often no more than salespeople for a Supra Society particular insurance company, attempt to offer testimony concerning the cost of an annuity to provide injured plaintiffs with an income stream to compensate them for lost earnings or support or to provide a source of income to fund future medical care. The admissibility of this type of expert testimony has not been directly ruled on by California courts1, but it would appear unlikely that the appellate courts would find such testimony admissible for the reasons discussed below. This article reviews cases, from California as well as other jurisdictions, which have addressed the issue, and suggests a strategy for crafting a motion in limine to preclude the expert testimony of annuitists.
