Presumptions and Burdens: A Practitioner’s Checklist

This is the practice-tip version of the presumption-and-burden architecture this series has been building: the six steps themselves, stated plainly, without the citation work. Use it as a checklist while you’re drafting discovery or opposing a motion; use the paid Implementing Kit when you need the authority behind each one.

1. Ask for the modest thing first — not the impossible thing. Don’t lead with a demand for proof of actual bias. You don’t need it, and asking for it invites the insurer to argue you haven’t met an impossible standard. Lead with the structural facts that are actually available early: how much the expert was paid, how often the insurer used them. That showing alone is what shifts the burden.
2. Make the insurer’s silence cost something. If the insurer could have kept records showing its expert treated claimants evenhandedly, and didn’t, say so directly and say it early. An insurer’s failure to build the record that would have answered the question is not a wash. Courts have already recognized it as a missed opportunity the insurer doesn’t get back — use that language.
3. Don’t let one “reasonable measure” answer a different conflict. Insurers will often point to one safeguard — an internal wall, an outside reviewer — and treat it as if it answers every bias argument in the case. It doesn’t. A safeguard aimed at the insurer’s own internal structure does not automatically answer a separate conflict in the retained expert’s own financial dependence. Keep your factors distinct in your briefing, and make the insurer show its rebuttal actually matches the conflict you raised.
4. Know the summary-judgment mechanics before you’re in the hearing. If the insurer moves for summary judgment arguing its expert’s opinion alone creates a “genuine dispute” defeating your claim, understand that the insurer has to make its own initial showing before any burden shifts to you. You are not required to produce trial-quality proof of bias to survive that motion — only enough to show a genuine, triable issue.
5. Watch for these deflections.
   • “Prove actual bias, not just an inference.” The inference is the standard. Don’t accept a heavier burden than the law requires.
   • “A single declaration answers the whole conflict.” Match the rebuttal to the specific factor it targets — see step 3.
   • “Structural conflict alone is never enough.” True as far as it goes — but it doesn’t mean no combination of facts is ever enough. Watch for this line being stretched past what it actually means.
   • “Our silence on the records question is neutral.” It isn’t. See step 2.
6. Understand the frontier, even if you can’t cite it yet. There is a live, unresolved argument that a retained expert’s directionally consistent bias — always resolving close calls the insurer’s way — is not just a credibility problem for a jury, but a reliability problem a court could screen out earlier, before trial. That argument is not settled law. Know it exists, and know where it does and doesn’t apply, so you’re not caught flat-footed if the other side raises it first.

Get the Implementing Kit →   Read the overview →   See the case study →

Related

The doctrine this checklist serves: Who Has to Prove What? The doctrine applied to one case, ground by ground: A Rebuttable Presumption in the Plaintiff’s Favor. The record-building sequence across all four factors: Building a Bias Record.

Distilled from `wiki/doctrinal_analysis_and_synthesis/2026-07-06-presumptions-burdens-synthesis.md` and `wiki/by-evaluation-factor/2026-07-06-presumptions-and-burdens.md`. Seminal authority — Demer v. IBM Corp. LTD Plan, 835 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2016). The controlling authority, model language, and objection scripts behind each step are reserved for the subscriber Implementing Kit. Educational and informational only; not legal advice.