First Professionals Insurance Company, Inc. v. Florendo et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/1/2013. (kar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST PROFESSIONALS
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR F. FLORENDO, M.D.;
OSBEC MEDICAL OF SOUTHERN
ILLINOIS, LLC; WAL-MART STORES, INC.;
and KARA MANLEY, Adm. of the Estate of
Gary W. Manley, deceased,
Defendants.

No. 11-cv-00197-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before this Court is defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 38). As to
Defendants’ motion in limine to bar First Professionals Insurance Company
(“FPIC”) from introducing any evidence from any communications between Dr.
Florendo and James Lacey, and between OSBEC and James Lacey, the Court
DENIES the motion.

See Doc. 52, Memo and Order denying motion to bar

testimony of James Lacey.
As to defendants’ motion to preclude any and all photographs of Gary
Manley, plaintiffs have no objections and the Court GRANTS the motion. The
Court DENIES defendants’ motion regarding any evidence of past claims or
lawsuits filed against Dr. Florendo and/or OSBEC.

Page 1 of 3

The Court finds that this

information is relevant to Dr. Florendo’s state of mind as to whether he should
have disclosed the circumstances surrounding Gary Manley’s death to FPIC.
Additionally, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion that Kara Manley be
precluded from providing any evidence, argument, testimony or inference
regarding her familiarity with her husband’s pain medication and her
conversation with Dr. Florendo concerning its safety.

The Court finds this

information is also relevant to Dr. Florendo’s state of mind as to whether he
should have disclosed the circumstances surrounding Gary Manley’s death to
FPIC.
The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to exclude any evidence,
arguments, testimony, or inference that Dr. Florendo was “let go” from his
position at Highland Associates. The Court DENIES defendants’ motion to bar
the introduction of any evidence, argument, testimony, or reference to the PLICA
application for insurance where Dr. Florendo answered affirmatively that he had
knowledge of potential claims against him. The Court finds this is also relevant to
Dr. Florendo’s state of mind as to whether he should have disclosed the
circumstances surrounding Gary Manley’s death to FPIC.
As to defendants’ motion to bar any evidence, arguments, testimony, or
inference that Dr. Florendo and/or OSBEC is not entitled to coverage under the
FPIC policy of insurance if Dr. Florendo should have known of a potential claim
when completing the FPIC policy application, the Court DENIES the motion. The
Court finds FPIC should be allowed to elicit testimony as to Dr. Florendo’s state of

Page 2 of 3

mind and make reasonable inferences from that evidence as to whether Dr.
Florendo failed to comply with the policy requirements.
Finally, as to defendants’ motion to bar the introduction of any evidence,
arguments, testimony, reference, or suggestion that FPIC or the underwriters at
AVRECO were reluctant to insure Dr. Florendo based on his past claims history,
the Court DENIES the motion. The Court finds this evidence is relevant to show
the difference that would have resulted had FPIC known about Gary Manley’s
death and its potential as a claim, and the prejudice to FPIC by not knowing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 1st day of February, 2013.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.02.01
11:31:01 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3