Hammann v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-3256,78-3256 |
| Citation | 620 F.2d 588 |
| Parties | 5 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1264 Bruce HAMMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO.; the Willard United Bank; and United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert F. Thornton, Thornton & Thornton, Willard, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Malvin L. Karp, Ulmer, Berne, Laronge, Glickman & Curtis, Cleveland, Ohio, for Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
Franklin D. Eckstein, Dush & Eckstein, Joseph F. Dush, Willard, Ohio, for Willard United Bank.
James R. Williams, U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, for the U. S.
Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff, Bruce Hammann, brought an action to recover under a fire insurance policy for damage to a barn. He appeals a jury verdict for the defendant returned in Toledo, Ohio.
The fire was first observed around 8:00 a. m. on August 29, 1975, shortly after Hammann returned from the barn. He had been alone there for approximately thirty minutes before his wife spotted the fire and gave the alarm. The defendant, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company presented expert testimony as to the origin and nature of the fire. It had three places of origin in the upper loft, was incendiary in nature, and was started by use of an accelerant. Hammann suggested that the fire was started by lightning but offered no substantial proof.
The main thrust of Hammann's appeal concerns the admission into evidence of his previous fire experiences. Hammann contends that such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. At least six other fires had occurred on various tracts of property belonging to the plaintiff over the years. Four of them resulted in insurance recoveries. The trial judge excluded evidence of fires which did not result in any recovery. Also excluded was any evidence of the circumstances surrounding the four fires yielding insurance recoveries.
Defendant argues that evidence of other fires was properly admitted under Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid. The trial court entertains broad discretion in making a determination of admissibility under Rule 404(b). United States v. Bloom, 538 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1976). We must determine whether such discretion was abused in ruling that the probative value of such fires outweighed their potentially prejudicial effect. United States v. Czarnecki, 552 F.2d 698 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 939, 97 S.Ct. 2652, 53 L.Ed.2d 257 (1977).
Here, the evidence of prior fires was properly admitted for a number of reasons: Defendant attacked Hammann's credibility by establishing that he had willfully concealed several occurrences of fires from the defendant. Second, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abon, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 2005 Ohio 3052 (OH 6/16/2005)
...(1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 24, 528 N.E.2d 1237. {¶53} Evidence of other fires is admissible in an arson case. Hammann v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., (6th Cir. 1980), 620 F.2d 588; Dabash v. Royal Indemnity Company (July 15, 1982), 8th Dist. No. 43967. In Hammann the court stated "***the......
-
Dohner v. Neff, No. 3:98CV7302.
...be admissible to show intent to harass under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, generally Hammann v. Hartford Acc. and Indent. Co., 620 F.2d 588, 589 (6th Cir.1980) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissible to show intent in civil cases); see also Wilson v. Muckala, 303 F.3d 1207, 12......
-
Warner v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...there has been a clear abuse of discretion. See Austin v. Loftsgaarden, 675 F.2d 168, 180 (8th Cir.1982); Hammann v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 620 F.2d 588, 589 (6th Cir.1980). No abuse of discretion has been shown here. In the only two cases we have found to be directly on point, ......
-
State v. Hall, 2005 Ohio 4403 (OH 8/24/2005), 2004-CA-0093.
...939, 97 S.Ct. 2652, 53 L.Ed.2d 257 (1977). {¶48} Evidence of other fires is admissible in an arson case. Hammann v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., (6th Cir. 1980), 620 F.2d 588; Dabash v. Royal Indemnity Company (July 15, 1982), 8th Dist. No. 43967. In Hammann the court stated "***the......