Jacobson v. American Family Insurance Company et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 85 Motion in Limine. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may propose a limiting instruction that (1) focuses the jurors' attention on Ms. Jacobson's reasonable expectations and (2) prohibits them from using this evidence to reformulate the insurance contract at issue in this case. If the parties are unable to agree on a limiting instruction, they may submit separate proposals for the Court's consideration. Any such proposed jury instruction(s) shall be submitted with the material accompanying the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Signed by Judge Michael T. Liburdi on 7/2/2020. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Tyler Jacobson, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-04373-PHX-MTL

American Family Insurance Company, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is American Family Insurance Company’s (“American Family”)

16

Motion in Limine. (Doc. 85.) American Family seeks to exclude the definition of

17

“relative” contained in automobile insurance policies written by other insurers. These

18

extrinsic policies define the term “relative” differently than the policy sold to the

19

Jacobsons. The Motion is denied, but the Court will permit a limiting jury instruction.

20

The standard for relevance under Rule 401, Federal Rules of Evidence, is whether

21

the evidence has “any tendency to make a fact [of consequence in determining the action]

22

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence . . . .” American Family

23

contends that the policies are irrelevant and should be excluded because (1) they were not

24

written by American Family and (2) the policy term at issue in this case has been previously

25

upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals. American Family further challenges the extrinsic

26

policy definitions under Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence, arguing that their probative

27

value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and

28

misleading the jury.

1

The Jacobsons argue that the non-American Family policies represent how the term

2

“relative” is defined as a matter of industry practice. They also assert that the evidence

3

tends to make more probable Ms. Jacobson’s reasonable expectation that her son was

4

covered under the American Family policy. (Doc. 92 at 3.)

5

The Court agrees with the Jacobsons that their reason for admitting this evidence

6

satisfies the Rule 401 standard. The evidence American Family seeks to exclude is

7

probative of two aspects of the reasonable expectations doctrine: whether American Family

8

failed to provide “full and adequate notice of the term in question, and the provision is

9

either unusual or unexpected, or one that emasculates apparent coverage” and the extent of

10

the insurance agent’s duty to disclaim coverage to prevent “induc[ing] the insured to

11

reasonably believe coverage exists . . . .” Gordinier v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 742 P.2d

12

277, 284 (1987).

13

Further, the Court is satisfied that a limiting instruction pursuant to Rule 105 of the

14

Federal Rules of Evidence can mitigate the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues

15

or misleading the jury.

16

reformulating the American Family policy definition of “relative” in such a way that adopts

17

the extrinsic policy terms.

A limiting instruction should direct the jury away from

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS ORDERED denying American Family’s Motion (Doc. 85).

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may propose a limiting instruction

21

that (1) focuses the jurors’ attention on Ms. Jacobson’s reasonable expectations and

22

(2) prohibits them from using this evidence to reformulate the insurance contract at issue

23

in this case. If the parties are unable to agree on a limiting instruction, they may submit

24

separate proposals for the Court’s consideration. Any such proposed jury instruction(s)

25

shall be submitted with the material accompanying the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order.

26

Dated this 2nd day of July, 2020.

27
28

-2-