Fiechtner v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 394

ORDER During trial, Defendant proffered Exhibit 89 into evidence and the Court admitted it over Plaintiffs objection.1 At the conclusion of her case in chief, Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider admission of certain portions of Exhibit 89. Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 10/11/2011. (erv2, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02681-WJM-MEH
DAWNMARIE FIECHTNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADMISSION
OF PAGES 19 AND 20 TO EXHIBIT 89

During trial, Defendant proffered Exhibit 89 into evidence and the Court admitted
it over Plaintiff’s objection.1 At the conclusion of her case in chief, Plaintiff moved the
Court to reconsider admission of certain portions of Exhibit 89. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to notify Defendant as to which specific portions she was objecting and ordered
both parties to file simultaneous briefs on the admissibility of the contested portions.
Having considered the arguments set forth by counsel live and in their briefs, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.
Exhibit 89 is a booklet prepared by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of
America entitled “Claims and Unfair Claims Handling Laws and Regulations.” The only
pages to which Plaintiff objects are pages 19 and 20, which set forth a Colorado
Insurance Regulation regarding penalties that can be imposed by the Commissioner of
Insurance if an insurer fails to make a timely decision and/or payment of benefits. The

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff is the party that had originally marked Exhibit 89 and
included it on her Exhibit List.

disputed portion of this Regulation provides examples of what the Commissioner
considers to form the basis for a reasonable dispute and a reasonable investigation.
Plaintiff argues that these portions of the Regulation are irrelevant because her
bad faith claim does not depend on whether Defendant followed the Commissioner’s
Regulations. Plaintiff argues that bad faith law is broader than set forth in pages 19 and
20 and, therefore, these Regulations are not probative of any issue in dispute in this
case. Defendant contends that the Regulation is relevant, not to rebut Plaintiff’s bad
faith claim, but because Plaintiff made Cynthia Campman’s knowledge and training a
disputed issue in this case.
The Court agrees that pages 19 and 20 of Exhibit 89 are relevant to whether,
and to what extent, Campman was familiar with Colorado insurance regulations.
Campman's knowledge and training was a major subject during Plaintiff’s counsel's
cross-examination of Campman. Plaintiff’s counsel elicited testimony that Campman
was not familiar with any Colorado insurance regulations. On redirect, Campman
testified that she received and reviewed Exhibit 89 as part of her training and Defendant
moved for its admission. Pages 19 and 20 show that Campman had some training on
Colorado Insurance Regulations. Because these pages are relevant to a disputed
issue in this case, they are admissible under Rule 402.
Plaintiff also argues that pages 19 and 20 should be excluded under Rule 403
because instructing the jury on the law is solely the Court’s province and, therefore,
inclusion of Colorado Insurance Regulations as an exhibit could confuse the jury. The
Court agrees that there is a chance that admission of the insurance regulations could
confuse the jury as to the appropriate legal standard on Plaintiff's bad faith and/or
unreasonable delay or denial of benefits claims. However, the Court finds that any
-2-

possible confusion can be averted with an appropriate jury instruction. As part of its
final instructions, the Court will inform the jury that its instructions are the law to be
applied to this case and, to the extent any party’s argument and/or any evidence is
contrary to the Court's instructions, the Court's instructions must prevail. The Court will
also consider whether a limiting instruction should be given directing the jury to consider
Exhibit 89 only for the purposes discussed above.
With appropriate instructions, the Court is confident that any potential jury
confusion can be mitigated. See, e.g., Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000)
(“A jury is presumed to follow its instructions.”). The Court finds that the relevance of
pages 19 and 20 is not substantially outweighed by the possibility of undue prejudice to
Plaintiff or confusion of the jury. Therefore, Rule 403 does not dictate exclusion of
these pages.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

-3-