Gonzalez et al v. GEICO General Insurance Company

Filing 195

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 187 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 1/4/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

MANUEL A. GONZALEZ,
ISHMAEL RAMJOHN, and
ALELI GONZALEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-240-T-30TBM

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Dkt. 187)
and Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 193).
The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the
premises, concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
DISCUSSION
I.

Brief Background
This is a third-party insurance bad faith action that stems from an automobile accident

that occurred on February 23, 2009, between Plaintiff Ishmael Ramjohn and Lisa Anderson.
At that time, Ramjohn was insured by Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company, under
an automobile policy providing bodily injury (“BI”) coverage in the amount of $100,000 per

person, and $300,000 per occurrence.1 It is undisputed that Ramjohn was at fault for the
accident and that the accident injured Anderson.
Anderson initially offered to settle her claim for the $100,000 policy limits but
GEICO rejected her initial offer. By the time that GEICO offered Anderson the full
$100,000 policy limit, she was unwilling to settle for that amount. Subsequently, following
a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Anderson and a Final Judgment was entered
in her favor in the amount of $398,097.82. On February 4, 2015, the insureds filed this bad
faith lawsuit against GEICO.
This case is set for trial on the Court’s February 2017 trial calendar. Plaintiffs have
filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence from being admitted during the trial.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine
A.

Disclosure of Confidential “Mediation Communications”

Plaintiffs state that they anticipate GEICO will argue and attempt to introduce
evidence revealing confidential “mediation communications.” This issue was previously
addressed by the Magistrate Judge when he ruled on Non-Party Lisa Anderson’s Motion to
Strike and Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 161). For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge in that Order (Dkt. 161), the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on this issue.
Indeed, as the Magistrate Judge aptly noted, “whether or not and when GEICO made
settlement offers to Ms. Anderson on behalf of its insured are at the heart of this litigation

1

Ramjohn was seventeen at the time of the accident. His grandfather, Manuel Gonzalez, and
mother, Aleli Gonzalez (formerly Ruiz), were also insureds under the policy.
Page 2 of 7

to which Ms. Anderson is not a party.” (Dkt. 161 at 6-7). However, the Court agrees with
Plaintiffs to the extent that GEICO may introduce only the following facts regarding the
underlying mediations: (1) at the November 2010 mediation, GEICO offered the $100,000
policy limit to settle Anderson’s claim and this offer was rejected; and (2) at the September
2013 mediation, GEICO offered $110,000 (Manuel Gonzalez’s $100,000 policy limit and
Aleli Gonzalez’s $10,000 policy limit) to settle Anderson’s claim and this offer was rejected.
Any other mediation communications are irrelevant.
B.

Opinions Regarding Anderson’s and Her Counsel’s Motives

Plaintiffs anticipate that GEICO will attempt to elicit opinions about Anderson’s and
her counsel’s motives and beliefs to the extent that they “set up” a bad faith claim. For
example, Plaintiffs state that certain witnesses may testify that Anderson secretly hoped
GEICO would not accept her settlement offers so she could pursue a bad faith case. Or that
Anderson’s counsel intentionally withheld certain medical reports in an attempt to set up a
bad faith claim. This issue has been squarely addressed by other courts in this district;
specifically, in prior bad faith cases, the courts have ruled that evidence regarding the motive
and conduct of the underlying plaintiff and her attorney is relevant and should not be
prohibited as long as it is not purely speculative. See Altheim v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No.
8:10-cv-156-T-24TBM, 2011 WL 1429735, at *2 (M.D. Fla. April 14, 2011); Kearney v.
Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 8:06-cv-595-T-24TGW, 2009 WL 3712343, at *3 (M.D. Fla.
Nov. 5, 2009); Mendez v. Unitrin Direct Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 8:06-cv-563-T-24MAP,
2007 WL 2696795, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2007); GEICO Cas. Co. v. Beauford, No. 8:05-

Page 3 of 7

cv-697-T-24EAJ, 2007 WL 2412953, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2007); see also Hayas v.
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:13-cv-1432-T-33AEP, 2014 WL 5590808, at *4 (M.D. Fla.
Nov. 3, 2014) (finding “that opinion testimony based on perception and observation relating
to [the claimant’s] willingness or unwillingness to settle to be proper consideration for the
jury in determining the outcome of this action . . . [and that such] testimony would not be
unfairly prejudicial to [the plaintiff]”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion on this issue is
denied. Plaintiffs may raise specific objections at the appropriate time at trial to the extent
that they believe that the introduction of evidence is pure speculation.
C.

Attacks on Anderson’s and Her Counsel’s Character

Plaintiffs anticipate that GEICO will argue and elicit testimony aimed at vilifying
Anderson and her counsel to shift the jury’s focus away from GEICO’s claim handling
decisions and practices. Upon consideration, the Court grants the motion to the extent that
the Court finds that there is no comparative bad faith defense—in other words, GEICO may
not argue or present evidence that Anderson and her counsel owed duties to assist GEICO
in its pre-suit investigation. However, the Court denies the motion to the extent that
Plaintiffs seek to entirely exclude evidence regarding Anderson’s and her counsel’s actions
and motives because, as explained above, such evidence is relevant to the issue of whether
the claim could have been settled. This ruling is also without prejudice to Plaintiffs to raise
a specific objection at trial.

Page 4 of 7

D.

Testimony from Michael Wallace, Esq.

Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiffs are seeking an order that excludes
Michael Wallace, Esq., GEICO’s staff counsel attorney, from offering any opinions,
speculation, or argument about Anderson’s counsel’s motives and beliefs. This motion is
denied as moot because the Court has already ruled that evidence regarding Anderson’s and
her counsel’s motives and beliefs may be relevant to their willingness to settle. Again, this
ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs to raise specific objections at trial.
E.

Aleli Gonzalez’s policy

Plaintiffs argue that GEICO is estopped from denying it provided Aleli Gonzalez with
bodily injury liability coverage under her policy. As the Court previously noted when it
ruled on GEICO’s motion in limine (Dkt. 185), it does not find the evidence regarding Aleli
Gonzalez’s policy to be particularly relevant. Consistent with that ruling, the Court reserves
on this issue: Plaintiffs may approach the bench during trial if they can adequately explain
how evidence related to Aleli Gonzalez’s policy is relevant to the issues in this case.
F.

Any Suggestion that GEICO Had No Realistic Opportunity to Settle

Plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting GEICO from arguing or eliciting testimony
suggesting that GEICO never had a realistic opportunity to settle Anderson’s claim for the
policy limits. GEICO’s response does not address this issue. However, upon consideration,
the Court denies this in limine request without prejudice to Plaintiffs to raise the issue at trial.

Page 5 of 7

G.

Any Suggestion about Plaintiffs Paying the Final Judgment

Plaintiffs anticipate that GEICO will argue that Plaintiffs have not paid any portion
of the final judgment entered against them and are either unwilling or unable to pay that
judgment. Upon consideration, the Court concludes that, although the jury may be permitted
to know about the existence and amount of the excess judgment, any evidence regarding
Plaintiffs’ lack of payment or inability to pay is irrelevant to the issue of whether GEICO
failed to settle Anderson’s claim in good faith. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted on
this issue.
H.

Inquiry Regarding Amounts Recoverable if Plaintiffs Prevail

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should prohibit GEICO from inquiring about the
amounts which Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anderson, and/or Anderson’s counsel stand to
recover from this lawsuit, should Plaintiffs prevail. The Court agrees that this evidence is
not relevant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted on this issue.
I.

Any Attempt to Relitigate Previously Adjudicated Issues

Plaintiffs argue that GEICO is collaterally estopped from relitigating issues that were
determined in the underlying auto negligence case, such as the value of Anderson’s past and
future medical expenses. GEICO appears to agree on this issue to the extent that it does not
plan on litigating any issues that were previously adjudicated in the underlying action.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied as moot because neither party seeks to relitigate
issues previously litigated in the underlying action.

Page 6 of 7

J.

Any Suggestion of a Conspiracy between Anderson’s Counsel and Doctors

Plaintiffs move to exclude GEICO from eliciting speculative opinion testimony that
Anderson’s treating physicians were working with her counsel to artificially inflate the value
of her bodily injury claim. The Court reserves on this issue. At this point, the Court cannot
say whether this evidence is speculative without first seeing what GEICO intends to
introduce. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may raise an appropriate objection if this issue is raised
at trial.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Dkt.
187) is granted in part and denied in part as explained herein.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 4, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

Page 7 of 7