St. Peter's Hospital et al v. American International Group et al

Filing 116

ORDER re 80 Second MOTION in Limine. Please review order for complete details. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 6/7/2018. (HEG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA
HELENA DIVISION

FILED
JUN O? 2018
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Helena

MOUNTAIN STATES
HEAL THCARE RECIPROCAL RISK
RETENTION GROUP and
COLUMBIA CASUALTY
COMPANY,

No. CV 16-91-H-SEH

ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Second Set of Motions in Limine, 3-7 .1 The
Court conducted a hearing on the motion on June 7, 2018.
Upon the record made in open court,
ORDERED:
1.

1

Part 3 of the motion, seeking an order "[p]recluding Lexington from

Doc. 80.

introducing any comment, argument, testimony, or evidence concerning settlement
of the Underlying Suit,"2 is GRANTED, except that evidence may be introduced
that the underlying case was (1) defended by Mountain States Healthcare
Reciprocal Risk Retention Group and (2) was settled.
2.

Part 4 of the motion, seeking an order "[p]recluding Lexington from

introducing any comment, argument, testimony, or evidence regarding the defense
of the Underling Suit by other insurers, including Mountain States and Columbia
Casualty," and part 5 of the motion, seeking and order "[p]recluding Lexington
from introducing any comment, argument, testimony, or evidence regarding the
policies or coverage provided by Mountain States or Columbia Casualty," 3 are
WITHDRAWN by Plaintiffs.
3.

Part 6 of the Motion, seeking an order "[p]recluding Lexington from

introducing any comment, argument, testimony, or evidence concerning the merits
of the Underlying Suit," 4 is GRANTED, except as provided in paragraph 1
of this Order and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's Order of June 4, 2018. 5

2

Doc. 80 at 2.

3

Doc. 80 at 2.

4

Doc. 80 at 2.

5

Doc. 114 at 4-5.

2

4.

Part 7 of the motion, seeking an order "[p]recluding Lexington from

introducing any opinion testimony by comment, argument, testimony, or evidence,
and thus precluding any comment, argument, testimony, or evidence which
requires expert testimony to establish," 6 is GRANTED. Expert testimony may not
be introduced by either party at trial.
5.

The Court RESERVES ruling on whether Defendant will be allowed

to present evidence at trial of the defense of prejudice.
DATED this f l y of June, 2018.

~o(,1ft'd7~
United States District Court

6

Doc. 80 at 2.

3