Bottini v. GEICO
Filing
107
ORDER denying 100 Motion for Reconsideration re 99 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 12/19/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (JM)
Case 8:13-cv-00365-EAK-AEP Document 28-1 Filed 11/06/13 Page 3 of 63 PagelD 239
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS............................................................................. 2
A.
The Accident, UM Coverage, and Settlements............. ........... 2
B.
Theories of the Case............................. ............... ...................4
C.
Rulings Effecting GEICO’s Liability Expert’s
Testimony.............. .............................................................. 6
1,
2.
D.
Pretrial ruling on inspection o f the engine.......................6
Rulings at trial concerning Swanger’s testimony
Plaintiffs “Good v. Evil” Theme And Presentation Of
"Bad Character” Evidence As To Geisbert.
................
8
13
E.
Plaintiff’s Value of Life Closing Argument.............................15
F.
Agency Instruction that Geisbert and Anita Lloyd Were
Responsible for Any Negligence of Tim Lloyd....................... 16
G.
The Verdict and Post-Trial Motions....................................... 17
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................................. .................................. 18
STANDARDS OF REVIEW................................................................................ 21
ARGUMENT.............. ........................................................................................ 22
I.
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL
COURT’S ERRONEOUS RULINGS EFFECTING
SWANGER’S TESTIMONY DENIED GEICO A FAIR
TRIAL............................................................................................... 22
A.
Improper Pretrial Restriction On Inspection............................22
I
Case 8:13-cv-00365-EAK-AEP Document 28-1 Filed 11/06/13 Page 4 of 63 PagelD 240
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
B.
C.
Improper Restriction Of Swanger’s Trial Testimony.............. 25
D.
II.
Improper Refusal To Compel The Return Of The Engine
To The Courtroom And Exclusion Of The Engine From
Evidence................................................................................. 23
Improper Presentation Of False Testimony To The Jury
28
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE
JURY THAT GEISBERT AND ANITA LLOYD WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEGLIGENCE OF TIM LLOYD
AND SENDING A VICARIOUS LIABILITY CLAIM TO
THE JURY WHEN SUCH A CLAIM WAS NEVER PLED
32
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FAILING TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL BASED ON
PLAINTIFF’S HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND
INFLAMMATORY CLOSING ARGUMENT, INCLUDING
AN IMPROPER VALUE OF LIFE ARGUMENT............................35
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
FAILING TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL BASED ON
PLAINTIFF’S CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF
GEISBERT AT TRIAL..................................................................... 39
V.
A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE
UNPRECEDENTED $30 MILLION VERDICT IS
EXCESSIVE AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.............................................................................. 46
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 50
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.................................................................... 50
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?