On May 20, 2009 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Juelch, Joyce, Juelch Sr, Norman, and 3M Company, 84 Lumber Company, 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Asbestos Defendants, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Hamilton Materials, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Pacific Gas And Electric Company, Pacipic Bell Telephone Company, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Quintec Industries, Inc., Redwood Plumbing Co., Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, Unocal Corporation, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
“SD WW BF WN of 28 McKenna LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO, 120139) DANIEL B. HOYE (BAR NO. 139683) ALECIA E, COTTON (BAR NO. 252777) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ELECTRONICALLY 101 California Street FILED 4lst Floor Superior Court of California, San Francisco, CA 94111 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 267-4000 APR 13 2010 Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 Clerk of the Court BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA Attomeys for Defendant Deputy Clerk METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CouNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOYCE JUELCH and Case No. CGC-09-275212 NORMAN JUELCH, SR., DEFENDANT’S MOTION IW Limine TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ENSURANCE COVERAGE Plaintiffs, {MEL 13] Vv. TRIAL DATE: APRIL 5, 2010 Dept.; 604 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, (BP), e¢ al. JUDGE: HONORABLE MARLA J. MILLER Defendants. THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT, by and through counsel (hereinafter “Defendant”), moves this Court for an order in limine precluding plaintiffs from introducing evidence of Defendant’s insurance coverage. In the context of asbestos litigation, there are numerous defendants, many of whom have insurance coverage relating to the injuries alleged. Plaintiffs’ counsel, during the course of trial of an asbestos matter, may attempt to introduce evidence of a defendant's insurance coverage or may refer to the existence of such coverage. The introduction of any such evidence is clearly prejudicial and is not relevant to any of the issues presented by this litigation, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 350,352 and 1153. Further, public policy forbids the introduction of evidence relating to insurance coverage. “1: oe DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVERAGE [Mit 13} SP:27418535.1CO Oo DN HR BY NR om ee SW wD & 15 28 MCKENNA LONG & Anpriocs LLP ATPORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Defendant, by this motion, seek an order in /imine to preclude the introduction of any such evidence and to preclude counsel or any witness from referring to or in any way mentioning insurance coverage during the course of a trial. L EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE MAY NOT BE INTRODUCED IN THIS TRIAL The law in California is clear that evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible in a personal injury action. Specifically, California Evidence Cade section 11S states: Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm, is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing. Generally speaking, evidence of insurance is regarded as highly prejudicial, and public policy in favor of precluding its admissibility is so strong that any attempt to inject insurance into a case by question, suggestion or argument is often held to be reversible error. VUehndkcer + Bolger (980) 98 Cal App.2d 628. 636. The language of Hvidence Code section 1155 is mandatory and such evidence must be found to be inadmissible unless the case falls within one of the clearly delineated exceptions to the rule. For example, the fact of insurance may be disclosed if'a witness is being cross-examined to disclose interest, bias or motive. Harty. Wiel (1974) 4 Cal App.3d 224, 231. Insurance may also be admissible to prove control (see, Perry» Pufueliné (1923 val. App. 275. 285), or to disclose possible interest in an insurer (see, Jones «. Bayley (1942149 Cab App.2d 647). These exceptions exist because, in certain situations, the information sought is clearly relevant, and the importance of the information is sufficient to outweigh the applicable public policy considerations. In the context of this asbestos litigation, none of these exceptions are applicable. There is no possible value in the introduction of information about insurance coverage, while the prejudice from the introduction of such evidence is apparent, Clearly, to permit the introduction of such evidence, or the mention of insurance in any way, would be inappropriate. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order: ~2- DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVERAGE [MIL 13} SF:27418535.1OC CO SR mh Re = 3s 28 McKenna Lona & ff ALDRIDGE LLP ANTORNEYS AT LAW 1. The plaintiffs and their counsel not introduce or attempt to introduce any evidence of insurance coverage of any defendant, or to argue or infer its existence; 2. The plaintiffs and their counsel refrain from making any reference to the fact of insurance coverage of any defendant without first, and upon proper showing outside of the presence of the jury, securing the permission of the Court; 3. That should there be any improper mention of insurance or insurance coverage, the Court will, upon objection of any one defendant, give proper admonishment to the jury, among any other remedy necessary in the situation; and 4, That should it be found that the fact of insurance or terms of a policy are relevant to an issue other than quality of the insured’s conduct, the Court will issue to the jury a proper limiting instruction and admonition pursuant to the doctrine of limited admissibility. Dated: — April 5, 2010 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP ™ Uc C lik “Lisa L. OBERG DanieL B. HOYE ALECIA E, COTTON Attorneys for Defendant, METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION 23-00 San FRancisco DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE MENTION OR EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVERAGE [Mit 13} SF:27418535.1