Motion,Ex Parte: Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filing # 129376585 E-Filed 06/23/2021 04:47:25 PM
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17'yth
 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
 JOE CARL ROGERS and
 HILDA ROGERS, his wife,
 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
 Plaintiffs,
 ASBESTOS LITIGATION
 VS.
 CASE NO. 19-025692 (27)
 ACOUSTI ENGINEERING COMPANY
 OF FLORIDA, et al.,
 Defendants.
 i
 SUPRO CORPORATION AND ACOUSTI ENGINEERINGCOMPANY OF
 FLORIDA'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF, OR
 REFERENCE TO, DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVERAGE
 DefendantsSupro Corporationand Acousti Engineering Company ofFlorida, by and through
 undersigned counsel, move in limine for an order prohibiting Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and all
 witnesses from making reference, whether in testimony, questioning, or argument, to Supro or
 Acousti's liability insurance coverage. This motion is based upon Florida Statutes sections 90.401,
 90.402, and 90.403 on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevantto any aspect of Plaintiff'scase and
 would serve only to unfairly prejudice Supro and Acousti.
 I.
 Evidence of Liability Insurance Coverage is Inadmissible
 Under Florida law, "[tlhe integection of liability insurance in a civil action for negligence has
 long been a matter of concern for the courts." Carlton v. Johns, 194 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA
 1967). The existence or amount of insurance coverage has no bearing on the issues of liability and
 damages and should not be considered by the jury. Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahasseev.
 Gregory, 237 So. 2d 163, 165 (Fla. 1970); AllstateInsurance Co. v. Wood 535 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla.
 1st DCA 1988). In addition, courts have been very careful to prevent the question of insurance from
 creeping into a case to keep any prejudice or favoritism from arising. See Seminole Shell Co. v.
 1
 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 06/23/2021 04:47:25 PM.****
 Clearwater Flying Co., 156 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
 Evidence of insurance carried by a defendantshould not be considered by the jury because
 the jury might be persuaded to find liability where none exists or award the injured plaintiff an
 excessive amount in sympathy. Carls Market v. Myer, 69 So. ld 789,793 (Fla.
 1953). Furthermore, a defendantis bound to suffer prejudice if the jury becomes generous "because
 of the idea that any amount assessedin the verdictwould be the sole burden ofthe insurance carrier."
 Id., Nicaise v. Gagnon, 597 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("It is clear in Florida that the
 introduction of the subject of insurance in an action where insurance is not a proper issue
 constitutes prejudicial error. This is particularly true when the suggestion relates to whether an
 adversejudgment will be paid by the defendant or its insurers."); Barnett v. Butler, 112
 So. 2d 907, 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (the reason for excluding evidence that a defendant carries
 liability insurance is to prevent any injustice which might occur because the jury is aware that the
 sum allotted the plaintiffwould be the burden of the insurance company and not the individual or
 corporation).
 As such, evidence of Supro or Acousti's liability insurance is inadmissible because it is
 both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Donahue v. Albertson's, Inc., 472 So. 2d 482,483 (Fla.
 4th DCA 1985) ("Evidence which presents purely collateral issues which would only serve
 to confuse and mislead the jury is too remote and should be excluded.").
 CONCLUSION
 Based on the foregoing, this Court should prohibit Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and all
 witnesses from making any reference, whether in testimony, questioning, or argument, to
 Supro or Acousti's liability insurance coverage.
 WHEREFORE, DefendantsSupro Corporationand Acousti Engineering CompanyofFlorida
 respectfullyrequest that this Court enter an order prohibiting Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and all
 witnesses from making reference, whether in testimony, questioning, or argument, to Supro and
 Acousti's liability insurance coverage, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and
 appropriate.
 Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of June, 2021.
 HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
 isi Todd C. Allev
 Evelyn F. Davis
 Florida Bar No. 0162744
 edavis@hpylaw.com
 Todd C. Alley
 Florida Bar No. 0108536
 talley@hpylaw.com
 303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000
 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243
 (404) 614-7400 - Telephone
 Counselfor Defendants Supro CorporationandAcousti
 Engineering Company of Florida
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been electronicallyserved
 to all counsel of record via the Florida Court's E-Portal and File & SeneXpress this 23rrd day of
 June, 2021.
 HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
 isl Todd C. Allev
 Evelyn F. Davis
 Florida Bar No. 0162744
 edavis@hpylaw.com
 Todd C. Alley
 Florida Bar No. 0108536
 talley@hpylaw.com
 303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
 Suite 4000
 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243
 (404) 614-7400 - Telephone
 (404) 614-7500 - Facsimile
 Counselfor DefendantsSupro Corporationand Acousti
 Engineering Company of Florida