22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 161a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201CHAMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Evidence — Motion in limine is denied where mere mention of items at trial would not be prejudicial or could be cured or possibility of mention at trial is merely speculative
ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC & MEDICAL CENTER CORP. (a/a/o Marie Cham), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-21413 COCE (53). July 24, 2014. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Kathy Eikosedikas, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Frantz Nelson, Hollywood, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, and the Court’s having reviewed the Motion and the relevant legal authorities; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff served its Motion in Limine, seeking a pretrial ruling on 52 evidentiary matters in this relatively straightforward PIP case. On July 1, 2014, this Court entered its Order requiring the parties to make a bona fide good faith effort to resolve the Motion on an item-by-item basis without court intervention. On July 17, 2013, just two weeks from the pretrial conference, the parties advised the Court that they had reached agreement on only 18 of these matters. The Plaintiff now seeks a hearing on the remaining 39 matters.1
The purpose of a motion in limine is to seek a pretrial ruling on evidentiary matters the “mere mention of which at trial would be prejudicial” and could not be cured. See Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Petion v. State, 48 So.3d 726, 737-38 (Fla. 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly S597a]; M.A. v. State, 384 So.2d 740, 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Motions in limine should not be used to address evidentiary matters which are merely speculative in nature. Rather, the moving party should have some good faith basis to believe that the opposing party actually intends to do the things for which the moving party seeks relief. The Court’s experience in presiding over PIP jury trials has demonstrated not one case in which this issue was brought up during trial. Plaintiff’s Motion is replete with items which seldom if ever actually arise in a PIP trial and are clearly nothing more than mere speculation.
As to all the 39 remaining matters, other than numbers 6, 15, 16, 51 and 52, the Court finds that the “mere mention” of these items at trial would not be prejudicial or could be cured, or that they are nothing more than a laundry list of things that could remotely happen in a jury trial. Therefore, as to these items, the Motion in Limine is DENIED without prejudice to making the appropriate objection at trial if desired.
As to items 6, 15, 16, 51 and 52, the Plaintiff may set the Renewed Motion for a special set 15-minute hearing collectively as to these five items only.
__________________
1Although, in their Agreed Order of July 17, 2014, the parties purport to agree to a resolution of items number 18 and 19, the Plaintiff includes these two items in its Renewed Motion. Additionally, as to item numbers 20 and 31, the parties apparently reached a partial resolution only.
* * *
