Halsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 57

ORDERING, ADJUDGING and DECREEING as follows: (1) Sections VII and VIII of Stte Farm's 40 MOTION in Limine are GRANTED; (2) Sections IX and X of State Farm's 40 MOTION in Limine are CONDITIONALLY GRANTED; and (3) State Farm's 42 Second MOTION in Limine is DENIED, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/25/13. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE MICHAEL HALSEY, AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE
OF MARTHA JOSEPHINE HALSEY,
DECEASED,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1092-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)

ORDER
Before the Court are two Motions in Limine filed by Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). (Docs. #40 & 42.) State Farm has
withdrawn Sections II, III, IV, V and VI of its First Motion in Limine (Docs. #45 & 46),
leaving the Court to resolve Sections VII, VIII, IX, and X.1 State Farm also has a second
Motion in Limine pending with the Court and has not withdrawn any of the arguments it
presents therein. (Doc. #42.) Plaintiff submitted a Response in Opposition to Defendant’s
Second Motion in Limine. (Doc. #47.)
1.

State Farm’s First Motion in Limine
Section VII of State Farm’s Motion in Limine requests that the Court prohibit any

mention of the number of policies issued by State Farm for coverage of automobiles owed

1

Section I of State Farm’s Motion in Limine was a Background section. (Doc. #40).

by Plaintiff, Ms. Halsey, or anyone in Plaintiff’s household. Section VIII of State Farm’s
Motion in Limine requests that the Court prohibit any mention of the limits of uninsured
motorist coverage in this case. State Farm argues that such evidence is irrelevant, does not
form part of Plaintiff’s prima facie case, and would be unduly prejudicial to State Farm.
Because the parties have already stipulated that the amount of available coverage here is
$100,000 (see Doc. #52), the Court can conceive of no circumstance when evidence of the
number of policies or amount of available uninsured motorist coverage would need to be
presented at trial. Thus, Sections VII and VIII of State Farm’s Motion in Limine are
GRANTED.
Section IX of State Farm’s Motion in Limine requests that the Court prohibit any
mention of any contractual obligations owed by State Farm to Plaintiff or that State Farm
breached any contractual obligation to Plaintiff, arguing that any such references would be
irrelevant, prejudicial, and not founded in the law. State Farm cannot breach a contractual
obligation to Plaintiff under the policy until Plaintiff proves that he is legally entitled to
recover under the policy. See Aetna Cas. and Surety Ins. Co. v. Beggs, 525 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.
1998). Accordingly, Section VIII of State Farm’s Motion in Limine is CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED.
Finally, Section X of State Farm’s Motion in Limine requests that the Court prohibit
any mention of the amount of premiums paid by Plaintiff, Ms. Halsey, or anyone in
Plaintiff’s household to State Farm for uninsured motorist coverage or the length of time that
anyone in Plaintiff’s household has been insured by State Farm, arguing that any such
2

reference would be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Court agrees, and Section X of
State Farm’s Motion in Limine is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
2.

State Farm’s Second Motion in Limine
In its Second Motion in Limine, State Farm requests that the Court prohibit any

mention of or evidence relating to whether Arcadia Sanchez Florez had a valid driver’s
license or was an illegal immigrant at the time of the accident. (Doc. #42.) State Farm
argues that such evidence is irrelevant and would be unduly prejudicial if submitted to the
jury. Plaintiff argues that such evidence is relevant to its claim that Ms. Florez acted
wantonly. (Doc. #47.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that Defendant’s Second
Motion in Limine is due to be DENIED. However, the Court reminds Plaintiff and his
counsel that this case is not one about illegal immigration but a car wreck and uninsured
motorist coverage. If Plaintiff attempts to use evidence of Ms. Florez’s immigration status
for a purpose other than its limited relevance as to wantonness, the Court will be inclined to
give the jury a limiting instruction.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
(1)

Sections VII and VIII of State Farm’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #40) are

GRANTED;
(2)

Sections IX and X of State Farm’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #40) are

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED; and
(3)

State Farm’s Second Motion in Limine (Doc. #42) is DENIED.

DONE this the 25th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3