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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
