Shelby County Health Care Corporation v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 187

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 175 Motion in Limine as set forth in this Order. 178 Motion in Limine is denied. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 2/7/2019. (jak) (Docket text modified on 2/7/2019 to correct the description of the document filed) (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION
VS.

PLAINTIFF

3:13-CV-00194-BRW

SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 175) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as set out below:
•

Plaintiff’s request to prohibit any reference to Arkansas law is DENIED, because
this issue is better addressed during trial. There may be instances when Arkansas
law is applicable.

•

Plaintiff’s request to prohibit reference or argument that it had a duty to intervene in
the probate proceedings is GRANTED. As far as I know, there was no duty under
the law – whether it would have been prudent is a different issue.

•

Plaintiff’s request to prohibit any documents from or reference to the probate
proceeding because it had no duty to join in the probate proceeding is DENIED.
This will need to be addressed on a document-by-document basis.

•

Plaintiff’s request that “the defense of mitigation of damages be limited” is DENIED
as vague. However, I do not believe intervention in the probate proceedings relates
to mitigation, since failure to intervene did not increase the amount of the
outstanding hospital loan.1

1

This argument was made in Defendants’ responses to the motion in limine (Doc. Nos.
177, 184).
1

Defendant Barbara Ford’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 178) to exclude “correspondence
between Ford’s then-attorneys, Marks & Harrison and/or Troy Henry, and Farm Bureau and its
attorneys concerning the negotiation of the settlement or discussion of the language included in the
release agreement” is DENIED. I cannot rule on the admissibility of documents in the abstract.
However, my visceral reaction is that they wouldn’t be relevant to the issues before the jury.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2019.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2