Norwood-Redfield Apartments Limited Partnership v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case held on the record on June 13, 2018, and for the reasons stated more fully on the open record, the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties motions in limine, as follows: 1. Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Offered by Plaintiff (ECF 70 ): GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiff will be precluded from offering opinion testimony by Joseph Caulfield based on Plaintiffs failure to properly and timely disclose such opinions, and for the further reasons stated on the record; and DENIED as moot in part as to Herbert Baumann, based on Plaintiffs representation on the record that it does not intend to offer opinion testimony by Mr. Baumann. [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS]. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 06/13/2018. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NORWOOD-REDFIELD
APARTMENTS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:16-cv-00639-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case
held on the record on June 13, 2018, and for the reasons stated more fully on the open
record, the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Offered by Plaintiff
(ECF 70): GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiff will be precluded from
offering opinion testimony by Joseph Caulfield based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly
and timely disclose such opinions, and for the further reasons stated on the record;
and DENIED as moot in part as to Herbert Baumann, based on Plaintiff’s
representation on the record that it does not intend to offer opinion testimony by Mr.
Baumann.
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Construction
Management Fee (ECF 71): DENIED, for the reasons discussed on the record,
including that the testimony at issue does not constitute hearsay.
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Attorneys’ Fees Testimony Offered by
Plaintiff (ECF 72): RULING RESERVED, pending the parties’ filing, by no later
than Friday, June 15, 2018, of any additional legal research and argument regarding
the sufficiency of evidence required to submit to the jury a claim of attorneys’ fees in
connection with a vexatious refusal to pay claim under Missouri law; but the Court
rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the claim for attorneys’ fees is to be decided by the

Court post-trial, and the Court holds that the claim for attorneys’ fees must be decided
by the jury in this jury trial.
4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Loss of Business
Income (ECF 73): GRANTED, based on Plaintiff’s failure to adequately and timely
disclose this element of damages, its computation, and the evidentiary material on
which the computation is based, and for the further reasons stated on the record.

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of June, 2018.

-2-