SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION v. ERM-WEST, INC., 2:11-CV-1174 TS. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20160202g17
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants' Insurance, and Defendant ERM-West, Inc.'s ("ERM") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Insurance Coverage. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants' Insurance, and Defendant ERM-West, Inc.'s ("ERM") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Insurance Coverage. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from i..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass") and WRS Infrastructure's ("WRS") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants' Insurance, and Defendant ERM-West, Inc.'s ("ERM") Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Insurance Coverage. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence of liability insurance coverage or that ERM and Compass are insured by the same insurance carrier.
Federal Rule of Evidence 411 states:
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.
To the extent that Plaintiffs intend to introduce evidence of liability insurance to prove that Defendants acted wrongfully, the Court will exclude that evidence. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence for a purpose permitted by Rule 411, the Court will permit that evidence, provided it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Defendants may make appropriate objections to specific evidence at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants' Motions in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Insurance (Docket Nos. 408 and 469) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Source: Leagle
