arrow left
arrow right
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
  • Joe Carl Rogers, et al Plaintiff vs. Certainteed Corporation Defendant Products Liability/Asbestos document preview
						
                                

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