Nelson v. Alaska National Insurance Company et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Clarence Charles Nelson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Alaska National Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00043-PHX-KML
ORDER
The parties agreed to arbitrate plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. (Doc. 59.) In
December 2025, Alaska National Insurance Company moved to exclude the opinions and
testimony of plaintiff’s experts. (Doc. 63.) The court denied that request by explaining “it
resolves disputes regarding expert testimony either at summary judgment (if a motion or
opposition relies on expert testimony) or immediately prior to trial (if a party hopes to call
the expert at trial.).” (Doc. 73 at 2.) Alaska National was granted leave to renew its motion
at a more appropriate time. Fifteen days later, Alaska National renewed its motion,
claiming it needs immediate resolution of the issue because the experts at issue are only
relevant to the breach of contract claim that will be arbitrated on April 30, 2026. (Doc. 76.)
Alaska National concedes it can present its exclusion arguments to the arbitration panel but
claims once that “panel is exposed to inadmissible or undisclosed expert opinions through
motion briefing, the prejudice cannot be cured.” (Doc. 76 at 2.)
Instead of establishing a plausible basis to immediately consider the admissibility
of the experts, Alaska National’s renewed motion establishes a new basis for denying relief.
Case 2:25-cv-00043-KML Document 77 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alaska National admits the experts are only relevant to the breach of contract claim that
will be resolved via arbitration. Alaska National further admits it will be able to make its
exclusion arguments to the arbitration panel. In these circumstances, Alaska National is
asking the court to issue what is effectively an advisory opinion regarding the evidence
appropriate for the arbitration panel to consider. See United States v. Alpine Land &
Reservoir Co., 887 F.2d 207, 214 (9th Cir. 1989) (“courts should not render advisory
opinions upon issues which are not pressed before the court, precisely framed and
necessary for decision”). At the very least, Alaska National is asking this court to determine
the admissibility of evidence at a time when it is not necessary for this court to do so.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Exclude (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00043-KML Document 77 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2