Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al

Filing 526

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part #408 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part #469 Motion in Limine. To the extent that Plaintiffs intend to introduce evidence of liability insurance to prove that Defendants acted wrongfully, the Court will exclude that evidence. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence for a purpose permitted by Rule 411, the Court will permit that evidence, provided it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Defendants may make appropriate objections to specific evidence at trial. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/1/16. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a
Utah municipal corporation; BP
PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Maryland corporation; and CHEVRON
U.S.A. INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE

Plaintiffs,
v.
ERM-WEST, INC., a California
corporation; COMPASS
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and WRS
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ENVIRONMENT, INC., a North Carolina
corporation, d/b/a WRSCOMPASS, INC.,

Case No. 2:11-CV-1174 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. (“Compass”)
and WRS Infrastructure’s (“WRS”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants’
Insurance, and Defendant ERM-West, Inc.’s (“ERM”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of
Insurance Coverage. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from introducing any
evidence of liability insurance coverage or that ERM and Compass are insured by the same
insurance carrier.
Federal Rule of Evidence 411 states:
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to
prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the
court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s
bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

1

To the extent that Plaintiffs intend to introduce evidence of liability insurance to prove
that Defendants acted wrongfully, the Court will exclude that evidence. However, to the extent
that Plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence for a purpose permitted by Rule 411, the Court will
permit that evidence, provided it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Defendants may make
appropriate objections to specific evidence at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Insurance
(Docket Nos. 408 and 469) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2