Reed v. AMCO Insurance Company et al

Filing 229

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion in limine #1 190 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/19/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRIAN REED,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

13

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:09-CV-0328-LRH-RAM
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiff Brian Reed’s (“Reed”) motion in limine #1. Doc. #190.

16

Defendant AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”) filed an opposition (Doc. #194) to which Reed

17

replied (Doc. #199).

18

I.

19

Facts and Procedural History
On August 15, 2008, Reed’s house was burglarized and his personal property, including a

20

large number of automotive and household tools, was taken. At the time of the burglary, Reed was

21

insured by defendant AMCO under a homeowner’s policy which included coverage for property

22

damage and loss of personal property. The day following the burglary Reed submitted a claim to

23

AMCO for the loss.

24

Subsequently, after more than a year of various issues between the parties, Reed filed a

25

complaint against AMCO for breach of contract. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. On March 3, 2010, Reed filed

26

an amended complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the

1

covenants of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) violation of Nevada’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.

2

Doc. #18. In response AMCO filed an answer to the amended complaint. Doc. #21. In its answer,

3

AMCO raised forty separate affirmative defenses. Id. Thereafter, Reed filed the present motion in

4

limine #1 to exclude all evidence relating to any alleged misrepresentations Reed made during the

5

claims process. Doc. #190.

6

II.

7

Discussion
Reed seeks an order precluding AMCO from offering evidence that he made

8

misrepresentations to AMCO during the claims process arguing that such evidence is not relevant

9

to the underlying action. See Doc. #190.

10

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds it

11

premature to provide a general court order excluding evidence from trial in light of the pending

12

motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings. See Doc. ##77, 80, 92. Reed’s

13

motion is more appropriately dealt with closer to trial after the court has reviewed and addressed

14

the merits of the pending motions. Accordingly, the court shall deny the present motion in limine

15

without prejudice.

16
17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion in limine #1 (Doc. #190) is
DENIED without prejudice.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 19th day of December, 2011.

21
22
23

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

2