27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1051a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2712EMILInsurance — Evidence — Motion in limine — Mere mention of claim handling process at trial would not be prejudicial or, if so, would not be so prejudicial that it could not be cured — Motion in limine seeking to preclude any reference to insurer’s claim handling procedures is denied without prejudice to making appropriate objection at trial — Discussion of motions in limine

ASAP RESTORATION CORP. (a/a/o Elaine Miller), Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 18-17697 COCE (53). March 17, 2020. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Aaron Silvers, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Eric K. Gressman, Miami, for Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’SAMENDED THIRD MOTION IN LIMINE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration of the Defendant’s Amended Third 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:

This case was filed August 2, 2018. The case is in a jury trial posture. A pretrial conference was set for January 23, 2020, and then continued to January 27, 2020. Thereafter, the case was set for jury trial for March 24, 2020. Since the time the case was set for pretrial conference, the parties have flooded the docket with motions — as of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff has filed 13 Motions, and the Defendant has filed 7 Motions. These numbers do not include the numerous “Responses” that the parties have filed to each other’s Motions.

One of these Motions is the Defendant’s Amended Third Motion in Limine, which is the subject of this Order. The Defendant filed this Motion in its original form on February 9, 2020. This Motion triggered the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Third Motion in Limine dated March 10, 2020. In it, the Court required the parties to make a good faith effort to resolve the matter without judicial intervention. The next day, the Defendant filed the instant Amended Third Motion in Limine, asserting that counsel attempted to resolve the matter with opposing counsel but there still is a dispute as to the scope of testimony permitted at trial. The subject matter of the Motion is any reference to the Defendant’s claim handling procedures. Although the Defendant was aware that this case was proceeding to jury trial, it waited until a trial date was set to file this Motion (as well as the others) and seek a hearing on it. The Defendant now seeks a hearing on the Motion.

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). Additionally, 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 insurance jury trials has demonstrated few if any cases in which the issue raised in the Motion is actually brought up during trial. Whether the Plaintiff will actually raise the Defendant’s claim handling procedures is clearly nothing more than mere speculation at this point.

Nevertheless, getting to the substance of the matter raised in the Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds that the “mere mention” of the claims handling process at trial would not be prejudicial or if so, would not be so prejudicial that it could not be cured. Therefore, as to the Defendant’s claim handling procedures, the Plaintiff’s request for an in limine ruling is DENIED without prejudice to making the appropriate objection at trial if desired.¹

__________________

¹The Court’s ruling should in no way be read as a determination that the issue of the Defendant’s claim handling process would be relevant or other admissible at trial.