Jordan Mozer & Associates, Ltd. v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin

Filing 117

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 10/12/2017: The Court previously entered a provisional ruling on this motion in limine (Dkt. No. 110 ). After further oral arguments in open court, however, the prior ruling is amended as follows. [For further details see Order.] Mailed notice (is, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JORDAN MOZER & ASSOCIATES,
LTD., an Illinois corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY
OF WISCONSIN, a Wisconsin corporation,
Defendant.

No. 14 CV 10264
Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE # 9: TO BAR TESTIMONY THAT THE EXTRA
EXPENSE PROVISION IN GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF WISCONSIN’S
POLICY IS AMBIGUOUS
The Court previously entered a provisional ruling on this motion in limine (Dkt. No. 110). After
further oral arguments in open court, however, the prior ruling is amended as follows.
Insofar as Defendant’s Motion in Limine # 9 seeks to bar testimony that a provision in a Policy is
ambiguous, the motion is granted with one exception. Generally, there is no need for any
witness to testify as to whether a term is ambiguous, as that is an issue for the Court to decide.
For the same reason, there is no need for the attorneys to use the term “ambiguous” in addressing
the jury. The Court’s instructions will inform the jury as to what it must decide and how it
should go about doing so. However, plaintiff intends to offer evidence that defendant’s claims
adjuster was prevented from making a prompt determination of plaintiff’s claim because he
found certain provisions of the policy to be ambiguous. According to plaintiff, the resulting delay
in adjusting the claim constituted a breach of the contract, aggravated plaintiff’s damages, and
prevented plaintiff from minimizing damages. In that regard, evidence of the adjuster’s
statements that he found the policy terms ambiguous may be admitted in order to prove the state
of mind of the adjuster, though not as proof that the provisions actually were ambiguous. The
Court will give an appropriate limiting instruction if the defendant tenders such.
Date: October 12, 2017

____________________________________
Ronald A. Guzmàn
United States District Judge