HINSON v. TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 176

ORDER granting 168 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 3/6/2017. (aow)

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
CHARLES R HINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:13cv394-MCR-EMT

TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY and
TITAN INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order
on Defendants’ Amended Third Motion in Limine, ECF No. 168. As with any
pretrial order, the Court retains broad discretion to reconsider the ruling at any time
throughout the trial. See, e.g., United States v. Shelley, 405 F.3d 1195, 1208 (11th
Cir.2005); Harrison v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 212cv205FTM38UAM, 2013
WL 12158377, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2013) (citing cases).
In ruling on Defendants’ Third Motion in Limine, the Court relied on cases
stating that an adjuster’s knowledge of the legal bad faith standard does not equate
to actually acting in good faith and that it is the Court’s duty to instruct the jury on
the standard for bad faith. ECF No. 163. While the Court agrees with those
Case No.: 3:13cv394-MCR-EMT

Page 2 of 2

statements, generally, the principles underlying them do not necessarily require
exclusion of all evidence of the adjusters’ knowledge of the bad faith standard. The
Court finds that the adjusters’ knowledge and understanding of the bad faith law as
it relates to their duties is relevant and admissible.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’
Amended Third Motion in Limine, ECF No. 168, is GRANTED in part without
prejudice to Defendants’ right to bring objections in context at trial. The Court will
permit adjusters to testify as to their understanding of Florida bad faith law based
on their experience and how that understanding informs or impacts their duties.
However, the adjusters will not be permitted to say what the law is. The Court will
caution the jury that it is the Court’s duty alone to instruct them on the law.
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2017.

M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:13cv394-MCR-EMT