Beth A. Jenson Prouty and James F. Mewborn, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff Acuity.
Aaron M. Simon and Rolf E. Sonnesyn, Tomsche Sonnesyn & Tomsche, P.A., Counsel for Defendant Bryan C. Johnson.
Patrick J. Boley, Paul A. Sand, Paula Duggan Vraa, and John M. Bjorkman, Larson King, LLP, Counsel for Defendant Western National Mutual Insurance Company.
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on three motions in limine by Plaintiff Acuity, and four motions in limine by Defendant Western National Mutual Insurance Company. [Docket Nos. 52, 64] This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff Acuity's April 25, 2013 Letter to the Court requesting the Court to exclude certain portions of deposition transcripts. [Docket No. 82] Defendant Bryan C. Johnson has not filed any motions in limine and has not opposed or otherwise responded to any of the motions in limine pending before the Court. Trial is set to start on April 29, 2013.
The factual background and procedural posture of this case are laid out in detail in the Court's April 26, 2013 Order on Acuity's first motion in limine and Acuity's motion to dismiss. [Docket No. 83]
III. PLAINTIFF ACUITY'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Western National from Referencing Any Errors Allegedly Made by Holden Duluth Agency as Evidence to Suggest that Holden Made an Error When it Removed the 1986 and Added the 1987 Tractor to Johnson's Policy.
The Court denies Acuity's motion to preclude Western National from referencing any errors allegedly made by Holden Duluth Agency. The alleged errors identified by Acuity and Western National are directly relevant to the central fact issue that the jury will decide. The alleged errors are also admissible for impeachment purposes.
B. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Western National from Referencing - or Introducing Evidence - that Holden Duluth Agency Thought It Had Binding Authority to Make Changes to Johnson's Trucking Policy but that Holden Did Not Have Such Authority According to Acuity.
The Court denies Acuity's motion to preclude Western National from referencing or introducing evidence that Holden Duluth Agency thought it had binding authority to make changes to Johnson's policy. Evidence that Holden employees Bauer and Rothe mistakenly stated that Holden had binding authority to make changes to Johnson's policy is admissible at trial. The evidence is relevant because it shows conflicting testimony between Acuity and Holden on the critical issue of when changes to Johnson's policy would be effective. The evidence is also admissible for impeachment of Holden employees.
C. Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Western National From Suggesting that Johnson Did Not Have ...