Whether the affirmed Rule 56 summary judgment decision is inconsistent with the standard set forth in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and violative of the 'Mend-the-Hold' Doctrine in Railway v. McCarthy, as the court relied upon inadmissible hearsay and simultaneously precluded relevant, material evidence of the insureds' Expert Witness Reports thereby depriving them of their rights to Due Process and a Jury Trial under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the affirmed Rule 56 summary judgment decision is inconsistent with the standard set forth in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and violative of the “Mend-the-Hold” Doctrine in Railway v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258 (1878), as the court relied upon inadmissible hearsay and simultaneously precluded relevant, material evidence of the insureds’ Expert Witness Reports thereby depriving them of their rights to Due Process and a Jury Trial under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.