of appeals relied upon a reference in the record to a non-existent "page 207 of the policy" as the basis for concluding that American Family had not directed the trial court to the PIP definitions with "sufficient specificity." Allen, 80 P.3d at 801-02. This reference appears in the record after both sides rested and when American Family was arguing against Allen's motion for a directed verdict, not when making its motion for a directed verdict. We suspect the court reporter made a typographical error and was in fact referencing "page 2 of 7" not "page 207" as it appears in the record. C.A.R. 10(e) provides that when the record does not conform materially to what occurred at trial, then the trial court is to correct the omission or misstatement unless the parties stipula Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>); Groce v. Fidelity Gen. Ins. Co., 252 Or. 296,
holding that expert testimony is not required to corroborate a claim for emotional distress holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding expert testimony is not required as a per se rule  in bad faith actions holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty holding the touchstone of determining existence of erisa plan is whether an administrative scheme is required