Motions in Limine Used to Limit Trial and Expert Testimony
Post 5116
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/ghvqp4Qi and at https://lnkd.in/gjsi8yGe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Trial Judge Must Limit Experts to Testimony that will Aid the Jury
The case brought by Plaintiff Gary Cawley and others against American Financial Security Life Insurance Company and others was before United States District Court for the District of Arizona’s Honorable Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge.
In Gary Cawley, et al. v. American Financial Security Life Insurance Company, et al., No. CV-22-00823-PHX-SPL, United States District Court, D. Arizona (July 2, 2025) Judge Logan resolved dozens of motions in limine filed by the parties.
Motions in Limine
Judge Logan issued orders relating to various motions in limine filed by both Plaintiffs and Defendant recognizing that a motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit testimony or evidence in a particular area and the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials. A ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.
This report is limited to the court’s ruling about defendant’s expert witness Christopher Martin.
The Court Ruled Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Number 5
Plaintiffs argued that the obviousness of warnings is an issue that a juror can readily determine from a lay perspective without the need for expert testimony. The Court agreed with the Defendant’s response that testimony about customs and practices in the insurance industry with respect to the use of disclaimers, including what is considered a “conspicuous disclaimer” pursuant to industry standards, is appropriate expert testimony. Therefore, the motion was denied, allowing Christopher Martin to testify about industry standards for conspicuous disclaimers in the health insurance industry.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 6
Plaintiffs requested to preclude Christopher Martin from testifying about the legal status of the relationship between the individuals who sold the subject short-term health insurance plan with which Judge Logan agreed. The law is the sole province of the judge.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 7
Plaintiffs moved the court to preclude Christopher Martin from testifying about whether Plaintiffs’ expectations of coverage under the subject short-term health insurance plan were reasonable. Whether Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of coverage is a factual question for the jury, which will not be aided by the testimony of either party’s expert. Therefore, the motion was granted, preventing Christopher Martin from offering opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ expectations.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 8
Plaintiffs sought to preclude Christopher Martin from testifying about the reasonableness of consumers’ conduct, including the Plaintiffs’ conduct, when purchasing insurance. The motion was granted, preventing Christopher Martin from opining on the reasonableness of the Plaintiffs actions
Federal Rule of Evidence 702
Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 permits parties to file motions to exclude to ensure the relevance and reliability of expert testimony. FRE 702 provides that: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The Court has a gatekeeping duty under the SCOTUS Daubert decision and Rule 702 to ensure that expert testimony will assist the trier of fact. The general test regarding the admissibility of expert testimony is whether the jury can receive appreciable help from such testimony.
ZALMA OPINION
Because juries and judges have little experience or knowledge about the custom and practice of the insurance industry expert witnesses are essential to aid the jury and the trial judge better understand the custom and practice of the insurance industry. I have served as an expert witness on insurance litigation and am careful to limit my testimony to the custom and practice of the industry garnered from my 58 years of experience in the field. The motions in limine were designed to limit the testimony of the experts to testimony designed to help the jury and judge understand the custom of the industry to properly rule on the claims and defenses of the parties.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 15
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-08-01-2025.pdf, at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-august-1-2025-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-eailc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post 5159
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Read the full 24 Page August 1, 2025 issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-08-01-2025.pdf
The Contents of the August 1, 2025 Issue of ZIFL Includes
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care ...
Unjust Enrichment is an Non-Contract Remedy
Post 5158
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gv2iv_St and at https://lnkd.in/gdqVihMa, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When an Insurer is Defrauded it Should Sue For Fraud Only
MONY Life Insurance Company v. Bernard R. Perez, No. 23-10770, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (July 23, 2025) resulted in a decision that allows an insured of a Disability Insurance policy to successfully defraud his insurer.
The case involved a dispute between MONY Life Insurance Company and Bernard R. Perez, an ophthalmologist, over a disability insurance contract. Perez was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011 and began receiving monthly disability benefits from MONY. However, MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and discontinued payments in 2018.
FACTS
In 1987, ophthalmologist Bernard R. Perez formed a for-profit medical practice in Tampa, Florida. Soon thereafter, in June 1988, Perez applied for, and, in September 1988, was ...
Unjust Enrichment is an Non-Contract Remedy
Post 5158
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gv2iv_St and at https://lnkd.in/gdqVihMa, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When an Insurer is Defrauded it Should Sue For Fraud Only
MONY Life Insurance Company v. Bernard R. Perez, No. 23-10770, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (July 23, 2025) resulted in a decision that allows an insured of a Disability Insurance policy to successfully defraud his insurer.
The case involved a dispute between MONY Life Insurance Company and Bernard R. Perez, an ophthalmologist, over a disability insurance contract. Perez was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011 and began receiving monthly disability benefits from MONY. However, MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and discontinued payments in 2018.
FACTS
In 1987, ophthalmologist Bernard R. Perez formed a for-profit medical practice in Tampa, Florida. Soon thereafter, in June 1988, Perez applied for, and, in September 1988, was ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
