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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
