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

Filing 58

ORDER granting 35 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/20/2013. (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 plaintiff First Professionals Insurance
Company (“FPIC”)’s first motion in limine (Doc. 35). As to plaintiff’s motion to
bar any mention of settlement offers, the Court GRANTS FPIC’s motion.
Court finds this information is not relevant.

The

Likewise, FPIC’s motion to bar

mention of the cost of insurance premiums paid by the defendants is GRANTED.
The Court finds this information is similarly not relevant.
As to FPIC’s motion to preclude defendants from mentioning the limits of
the policy at issue, the Court GRANTS this motion.

The Court finds the

information is irrelevant. FPIC’s motion to bar any mention of reimbursement for
any loss or payment through re-insurance is also GRANTED, as the Court finds

Page 1 of 3

this information to be not relevant.

As to FPIC’s motion to bar any evidence,

testimony or reference to the parties’ financial situation or the economic disparity
of the parties, the Court GRANTS this motion. The Court finds this information
to be irrelevant.
As to FPIC’s motion to bar any argument that the insurance application was
not attached to the policy in question and thus, FPIC could not deny coverage
based on a statement or omission in the application, the Court GRANTS this
motion. The Court finds pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/154, there is no requirement
that the application be attached to the policy.
FPIC’s motion to bar any evidence, testimony and/or reference to any prior
allegations or prior claims made against FPIC or its employees regarding
improper claims practice, bad faith or improper denials of coverage is
GRANTED. The Court similarly finds this information is not relevant.
As to FPIC’s motion to bar any evidence, argument, testimony or inference
about Susan McCray’s opinions due to her untimely disclosure by defendants, the
Court GRANTS this motion. See Doc. 57, Order granting motion to bar Susan
McCray’s testimony.
Finally, as to FPIC’s motion to exclude all witnesses from the trial, with the
exception of the parties, and to further prohibit any non-party witness from
discussing trial testimony with another non-party witness, the Court GRANTS
this motion. Pursuant to Rule 615, Fed R. Civ. P., “[a]t a party’s request, the

Page 2 of 3

court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’
testimony.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of February, 2013.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.02.20
11:50:40 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3