Godfrey v. Csaa Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. CIV-19-00329-JD
| Decision Date | 04 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV-19-00329-JD |
| Parties | RUSS GODFREY and NATALIE GODFREY, Plaintiffs, v. CSAA FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine [Doc. No. 51] and Defendant's Motions in Limine [Doc. Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59 and 60]. The Court held a hearing on these motions on February 27, 2020. [See Doc. Nos. 66 and 99].
Plaintiffs Russ and Natalie Godfrey ("Godfreys") claim that Defendant CSAA Fire & Casualty Insurance Company ("CSAA") breached the parties' insurance contract and breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing when CSAA denied a claim for roof damage following a storm in February 2018. [Doc. No. 12]. As reflected in the Court's minute sheet from the hearing [Doc. No. 99], Godfreys' Motions in Limine Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8 [Doc. No. 51], and CSAA's Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 4-8 [Doc. Nos. 54 and 55] were resolved at or before the hearing on February 27, 2020. The remaining Motions in Limine are discussed below.
A motion in limine is a '"pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial."' Edens v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 834 F.3d 1116, 1130 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). It '"is a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary question, which the court may provide at its discretion to aid the parties in formulating trial strategy."' Id. (quoting Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995)).
A court's in limine rulings are preliminary and are subject to change as the case unfolds or at its discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). Motions in limine that generally lack specificity are properly denied. See Shotts v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-1266-SLP, 2018 WL 4832625, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2018) (unpublished); Mantle v. Albertson's, Inc., No. 03-cv-1601-T, 2004 WL 7330805, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2004) (unpublished).
The Court's analysis is guided by Federal Rule of Evidence 102: that the Federal Rules of Evidence "should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination." The Court must determine relevancy, i.e., whether the evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401;1 see also Fed. R.Evid. 402.2 However, the Court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The Godfreys first seek to exclude Godfrey v. Travelers, Russ Godfrey's settled litigation from 2004 to 2005 over a denied insurance claim involving a different house that the Godfreys no longer own, a different insurance company, and a different type of claim. [See Doc. No. 51 at 1]. CSAA responds that evidence of the Godfreys' prior litigation is relevant if the claims are "substantially similar," that the pleadings in the Travelers case and this case are virtually identical, and that this evidence is needed to challenge the Godfreys' credibility. [Doc. No. 81 at 9]. At the hearing, CSAA argued that the evidence of this litigation shows a pattern of claims and lawsuits which goes to the Godfreys' bias and credibility, and that an indirect consequence might be that it shows the plaintiffs are litigious. The Godfreys replied at the hearing that there is nothingsimilar about the two claims and that they would be unfairly prejudiced showing prior pleadings to the jury because these are form pleadings drafted by the attorneys, which the jury will not understand. Additionally, the Godfreys argued that the claims are predicated upon different issues—the Travelers claim involved a slab issue in the kitchen, and the CSAA claim involves, according to the Godfreys, a change in the reason for the denial of a claim on their residential roof.
The Tenth Circuit applies the following four-part test to evidence of other acts:
Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1227 (10th Cir. 2000).
When asked at the hearing what the "proper purpose" of the evidence is and how it is relevant, CSAA's counsel responded that it would go to Godfreys' potential bias and credibility and that "an indirect consequence" is it could show the plaintiffs are litigious. Such evidence can be proper and relevant to bias and credibility depending on the circumstances. However, CSAA has presented nothing to indicate that Mr. Godfrey was not credible in the prior Travelers litigation (e.g., that the claim was fraudulent or submitted for an improper purpose), and has made no showing of how this prior litigation proves any bias; it is the fact of the Travelers litigation itself that CSAA would like to introduce to undermine credibility or to show bias.
Authorities from the Seventh and Second Circuits, which the Court finds persuasive, hold that evidence of a plaintiff's prior lawsuits is not admissible simply to prove that a plaintiff is litigious. See Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 137 F.3d 490, 495-96 (7th Cir. 1998); Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 592 (2d Cir. 1988). The Court finds that because the only relevance of this prior litigation that CSAA has shown would be an impermissible one (litigiousness), the evidence should be excluded as not relevant. The Court also does not find—based on what has been presented to the Court in briefing and at argument—that the allegations in the two cases (the Travelers case filed pre-Twombly and this case filed post-Twombly)3 are close enough to have probative value to the facts at issue here.
Further, even if the evidence were deemed relevant, the probative value of Godfrey v. Travelers in this case is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Travelers litigation is remote in time and involves a different insurer, different home, and different policy. The risk of unfair prejudice is high that based on nothing more than the fact of Mr. Godfrey filing a prior insurance lawsuit, the jury would question the validity of the current claim. The Court also is concerned about wasting time and undue delay, as the Godfreys would want to explain the circumstances of that case, how it was different, and that they succeeded in obtaining a settlement. Cf. Outley, 837 F.2d at 591-95 ().
Both parties cite Richardson v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 186 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 1999) (). Richardson is inapposite. In that case, the "critical issue" that incorporated the prior case was whether an injury from 1996 (the injury at issue) aggravated a prior 1986 injury for which the plaintiff had a prior lawsuit and settlement. Id. at 1278. In addition to aggravation issues, there were issues of accord and satisfaction. Id. No such issues are present between the current litigation and Godfrey v. Travelers. Regarding damages, the Court finds that this litigation would be too remote and unconnected to the present case to be relevant or have probative value to alleged damages this case, unless the Godfreys open the door to it.
Additionally, CSAA cites Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1459-60 (10th Cir. 1987) for the proposition that evidence of prior lawsuits is admissible so long as the prior case is "substantially similar" to the case at issue. [Doc. No. 81 at 8-9]. However, Karns is a products-liability case, and the entire reasoning behind finding that evidence of prior lawsuits can be admissible in such cases was because the evidence "has at least some tendency to show that defendant was on notice concerning possible defects in its product." Id. at 1460 n.8. Karns has no applicability in this case—CSAA is a different defendant, and prior notice is not an issue.
The Godfreys' Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED.
In Motion in Limine No. 5, the Godfreys seek to exclude evidence of any alleged criminal charges against the principals of Ultimate Roofing. [Doc. No. 51 at 2]. UltimateRoofing performed repairs on the Godfreys' roof after damage in April 2017, as well as the subject damage from February 2018. [Id.]. The principals of Ultimate Roofing were recently charged with various felonies by the Attorney General of Oklahoma. See, e.g., Oklahoma v. Smith et al., Oklahoma County Case No. CF-2020-42 (Home Repair Fraud and Embezzlement). The Godfreys claim that these proceedings are "completely unrelated to this case," are not relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by unfair prejudice. [Doc. No. 51 at 2].
CSAA argues that the reports related to the damage to the Godfreys' roof were drafted by Allen Lippoldt ("Mr. Lippoldt") and bear the name of Ultimate Roofing, so the jury is entitled to know the criminal allegations asserted against the principals of Ultimate Roofing. [Doc. No. 81 at 12-13]. CSAA noted at the hearing that Ultimate Roofing is...
To continue reading
Request your trial