On August 27, 2014 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hines, Debra,
and
Homeowners Choice Prop & Casualty Ins Co,
for Contract and Indebtedness
in the District Court of Broward County.
Preview
Filing # 52361882 E-Filed 02/10/2017 03:30:23 PM
14211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02
DEBRA HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S REPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING
CROSS EXAMINATION OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DIRECT
COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and hereby
responds to the above referenced motion and states,
1. The Plaintiff's Motion seeking to prevent the Defendant from “crossing Plaintiff's
experts on matters outside the scope of the expertise they are being presented for and outside of
their direct examinations”.
2. This is not a proper issue for a Motion in Limine. A motion in limine is to
prevent the jury from hearing or seeing matters that are irrelevant and prejudicial. Buy-Low
Save Centers y. Gilbert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
3. “A motion in limine is especially appropriate when addressed to evidence which
will be highly prejudicial to the moving party and which, if referred to in a question which the
court rules inadmissible, would be unlikely to be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction
by the court to do so.” Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also
Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 104.5 (1995 Ed.).
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/10/2017 3:30:23 PM.****4. Cross examination of an expert witness is governed by the Rules of Evidence and
it would be impossible for this Court to control or otherwise limit cross examination until it is
actually presented.
5. Mr. Funderburk has expertise in geology and engineering. The Defendant is
entitled to explore his opinion within the scope of expertise. If the Plaintiff believes that a
question calls for an answer beyond the scope of direct examination a proper objection should be
made at that time.
6. For this Court to so limit the examination of a witness before the examination
even begins would be tantamount to a trial by motion practice.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion in
Limine.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
forwarded by electronic mail to: Ryan H. Sherman, Esq. at eserviceSLPA@ gmail.com and
Morgan Barfield at Service@corlessbarficld.com on this 10" day of FEBRUARY, 2017.
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
Waterford Plaza
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 849-7200 (telephone)
(813) 849-7201 (fax)
gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com
ulle@gs
Teh T Lbecbe-
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
HCP.14211 FBN: 88819
By:
Document Filed Date
February 10, 2017
Case Filing Date
August 27, 2014
Category
Contract and Indebtedness
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 52361882 E-Filed 02/10/2017 03:30:23 PM 14211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02 DEBRA HINES, Plaintiff, vs. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. a Florida Corporation, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S REPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING CROSS EXAMINATION OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DIRECT COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and hereby responds to the above referenced motion and states, 1. The Plaintiff's Motion seeking to prevent the Defendant from “crossing Plaintiff's experts on matters outside the scope of the expertise they are being presented for and outside of their direct examinations”. 2. This is not a proper issue for a Motion in Limine. A motion in limine is to prevent the jury from hearing or seeing matters that are irrelevant and prejudicial. Buy-Low Save Centers y. Gilbert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). 3. “A motion in limine is especially appropriate when addressed to evidence which will be highly prejudicial to the moving party and which, if referred to in a question which the court rules inadmissible, would be unlikely to be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so.” Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 104.5 (1995 Ed.). *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/10/2017 3:30:23 PM.****4. Cross examination of an expert witness is governed by the Rules of Evidence and it would be impossible for this Court to control or otherwise limit cross examination until it is actually presented. 5. Mr. Funderburk has expertise in geology and engineering. The Defendant is entitled to explore his opinion within the scope of expertise. If the Plaintiff believes that a question calls for an answer beyond the scope of direct examination a proper objection should be made at that time. 6. For this Court to so limit the examination of a witness before the examination even begins would be tantamount to a trial by motion practice. WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that this Court deny the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded by electronic mail to: Ryan H. Sherman, Esq. at eserviceSLPA@ gmail.com and Morgan Barfield at Service@corlessbarficld.com on this 10" day of FEBRUARY, 2017. GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant Waterford Plaza 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 (813) 849-7200 (telephone) (813) 849-7201 (fax) gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com ulle@gs Teh T Lbecbe- ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. HCP.14211 FBN: 88819 By: