Harris v. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
62
Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying 45 SEALED MOTION (for summary judgment), granting in part, denying in part 48 MOTION to Exclude , Or In The Alternative to Limit, The Testimony of Steven Hayne, M.D.. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 9/6/12 (LWE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
GWENITA SIMS HARRIS
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV503TSL-MTP
OHIO NATIONAL LIFE
ASSURANCE CORPORATION
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant
Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation (Ohio National) for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and a separate motion by Ohio National to exclude the
testimony of plaintiff’s expert Steven Hayne, M.D.
Plaintiff
Gwenita Sims Harris has responded in opposition to these motions.
The court has considered the memoranda of authorities, together
with attachments, submitted by the parties.
While the court
acknowledges that defendant has made a strong showing in support
of its motion for summary judgment, the court is of the opinion
that this case would be best resolved upon a full presentation of
the facts in the context of trial setting, and therefore, the
court will deny summary judgment at this time.
As to the motion to exclude Dr. Hayne’s testimony, the court
concludes that defendant’s motion is well taken to the extent it
seeks to preclude Dr. Hayne’s testimony relating his opinion that
the cause of Edward Harris’s death is necessarily “undetermined”
since, owing to deficiencies in the death investigation by the
police and coroner, the cause of death cannot be ruled a suicide
or accident to a “reasonable medical certainty.”
Dr. Hayne has
expressed his view that “reasonable medical certainty” is a "very
high standard" that is "certainly above 90 or 95 or even 99
percent"; and thus in his view, even if the available evidence
supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the
manner of death was suicide, the manner of death is "undetermined"
unless there is a greater than 90 percent probability that the
manner of death was suicide.
In the court’s opinion, Dr. Hayne’s
opinion on this point is immaterial and has substantial potential
to confuse and mislead the jury since defendant has the burden
only to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the manner
of Mr. Harris’s death was suicide1 and as it does not have the
burden to prove that there is a greater than 90 percent
probability that the manner of Mr. Harris’s death was suicide.
1
This is true whether Mississippi or South Carolina law
applies. See Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Jefcoats, 164
Miss. 659, 143 So. 842 (Miss. 1932) (in action on ordinary life
insurance policy, burden of proof is on insurer “to establish, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the deceased came to his
death by his own volition, or, in other words, that he was a
suicide”); Owens v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 240 F. Supp. 294,
296 (E.D. S.C. 1965) (holding that “[t]he burden of proof rests
upon the insurer to show, by the preponderance of the evidence,
that the insured took his life by his own hand or act or that he
violated the terms of the policy by self-destruction”).
2
The motion to exclude will be granted to this extent.
However,
Dr. Hayne is qualified and will not be precluded from offering his
opinion as to deficiencies in the death investigation by the
coroner’s office and police department, as the court is unable to
conclude that such testimony is necessarily immaterial.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that defendant’s motion
for summary judgment is denied, and the motion to exclude Dr.
Hayne is granted in part and denied in part.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2012.
/s/ Tom S. Lee
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?