IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company v. Kaisch et al

Filing 56

OPINION and ORDER Denying Defendants'/Counter-Plaintiffs' 47 Motion In Limine, and 49 Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Pre-August 23, 2012 Statements. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Civil Case No. 15-11566
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
DAVID P. KAISCH and
JULIE KAISCH,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs;

And
DAVID M. KAISCH,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’/COUNTERPLAINTIFFS’ (1) MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 47) AND (2) MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRE-AUGUST 23, 2012
STATEMENTS (ECF NO. 49)

1

This action involves a dispute over automobile insurance policy coverage.
On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant IDS Property Casualty Insurance
Company (“Plaintiff” or “IDS”) filed this action seeking declaratory relief against
Defendants David P. Kaisch and Julie Kaisch (collectively “Defendants”). On
September 14, 2015, Defendants’ son, Intervenor David M. Kaisch (“Intervenor”)
filed a complaint against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant IDS for their refusal to pay
for collision damage arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on
February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 16.)
Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motions in Limine. (ECF Nos.
47 & 49.) Defendants request that this Court limit the introduction of evidence at
trial to the two statements identified in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Complaint. (ECF
No. 47 at Pg ID 1097.) Finding the facts and legal arguments sufficiently
presented in the parties’ briefs, the Court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). For the reasons that follow, the
Court denies Defendants’ motions.
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Complaint state the following:
That on July 24, 2012, Defendant, David P. Kaisch,
contacted IDS to advise that he would be moving to
Florida and that he would be taking his 2007 Dodge with
him. He further notified IDS that his wife, Julie Kaisch,
would be joining him in Florida within 6 months.
....
That on July 24, 2012, Defendant, David P. Kaisch,
contacted IDS to advise that he would be moving to
2

Florida and that he would be taking his 2007 Dodge with
him. He further notified IDS that his wife, Julie Kaisch,
would be joining him in Florida within 6 months.
(ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 2.)
Defendants’ position is that other than the two statements identified above,
no other statements should be introduced at trial. Specifically, Defendants provide
that the statements made during the Examination Under Oath and on May 10, 2013
and June 30, 2014 should be precluded because they were not identified in the
Complaint. (ECF No. 47 at Pg ID 1105-06.) Further, Defendants argue that any
statements made before August 23, 2012 be precluded. (ECF No. 49.)
As to the statements made prior to August 23, 2012, Plaintiff maintains that
Defendants made statements as early as July 24, 2012 relating to their move to
Florida from Michigan. (ECF No. 52 at Pg ID 1342.) The May 10, 2013
statement refers to Defendant David P. Kaisch contacting Plaintiff to submit a
claim for one of his cars under his insurance policy, where he stated that his
vehicle was damaged while vacationing in Florida. (ECF No. 40 at Pg ID 1037.)
The June 30, 2014 statement refers to a call Defendant David P. Kaisch
made to Plaintiff to discuss changes to his homeowner’s policy. (Id.) During that
call, Mr. Kaisch allegedly “admitted to running a business, Seniors On The Go,
right out of his house” and that “he was residing at the policy address in
Michigan.” (Id.)
3

On November 5, 2014, Defendant David P. Kaisch was involved in a car
accident in Sarasota, Florida with the vehicle he added to the policy in 2013. (Id.)
Following this accident, Plaintiff began an investigation of Mr. Kaisch’s claim,
which included an Examination Under Oath. (Id. at Pg ID 1038.) During the
examination, Mr. Kaisch made a series of statements regarding his time in Florida,
including operation of the Florida businesses and his residency. (Id.)
District courts have broad discretion over matters involving the admissibility
of evidence at trial. United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482, 494 (6th Cir. 1991).
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[e]vidence is relevant . . . if it has any
tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence; and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R.
Evid. 401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Further,
relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Despite Defendants’ contentions, Plaintiff met its pleading requirement for
fraud. The fact that Plaintiff may introduce additional statements does not change
the Court’s position. Further, Defendants’ objections primarily are based on
notice. However, Defendants were on notice of the statements and allowed to
4

respond, as well as defend against Plaintiff’s statements in Defendants’ response to
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which was over two years ago.
Furthermore, the statements are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, including the
sequence of events, and the jury’s determination as to whether Defendants
intended to defraud Plaintiff. As stated in the Court’s March 7, 2017 Opinion and
Order, “[t]he question of whether Defendants intended to misrepresent where they
lived to Defendants is a question for the jury.” (ECF No. 40 at Pg ID 1043.) The
statements all relate to the same policy and the communications Defendants made
to Plaintiff while Plaintiff continued to provide Defendants with insurance
coverage.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 47 & 49)

are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 16, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 16, 2018, by electronic and/or

5

U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

6