Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Landrum v. Conseco Life Insurance Co.
United States District Court, Fifth Circuit
January 2, 2014
PATRICIA K. LANDRUM, Plaintiff,
CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION  IN LIMINE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION  IN LIMINE
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, District Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT are Defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company's Consolidated Motion  in Limine and Plaintiff Patricia K. Landrum's Consolidated Motion  in Limine. Ms. Landrum has filed a Response  to Conseco's Motion, and Conseco a Reply . Conseco has filed a Response  to Ms. Landrum's Motion. After considering the pleadings on file, the record, and relevant legal authorities, the Court finds that both Motions  in Limine should be granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
Conseco seeks to exclude the following at trial:
1. Any statement by Ms. Landrum that Conseco denied her claim for Policy proceeds;
2. Evidence relating to Ms. Landrum's claims for extra-contractual, bad faith, or punitive damages;
3. Evidence relating to any alleged emotional distress damages suffered by Ms. Landrum;
4. Evidence relating to any party's relative wealth or size;
5. Bad acts of Conseco or other insurers;
6. Evidence of discovery disputes between the parties; as well as evidence of either party's decision not to conduct certain discovery;
7. Reserve information;
8. "Golden Rule" arguments;
9. Arguments asking jury to "send a message" or to act as "conscience of community";
10. Testimony from Plaintiff's proposed expert regarding interpretation of the policy or calculations based on the policy provisions;
11. The Court's September 18, 2012, Order denying Conseco's cross claim for interpleader as a basis for a finding of bad faith;
12. Any reference to Ms. Landrum's adoption or search for her adopted family or related issues that may be used to garner sympathy that are irrelevant to Ms. Landrum's claims; and
13. Any reference to Ms. Landrum's daughter's death.
Conseco's Mot.  at pp.1-2.
Ms. Landrum seeks to exclude at trial "any testimony, evidence and/or argument" regarding
1. Marriages and/or divorces of Ms. Landrum other than her marriage to and divorce from John L. Landrum, deceased;
2. Any personal bankruptcy filed by Ms. Landrum;
3. Any policies of insurance under which Ms. Landrum is or was a beneficiary other than the Policy that is the subject of this litigation;
4. Any alleged "Specimen" policy of insurance that differs in any respect from the Policy;
5. The Mississippi Department of Insurance's alleged approval of, disapproval of, or the likelihood of the Mississippi Department of Insurance approving a policy with terms such as those expressly contained in the subject Policy;
6. Any testimony, evidence and argument regarding any document, testimony, or evidence that Conseco did not properly disclose or produce;
7. The amount of money that Ms. Landrum "would have accepted" or "would accept" from Conseco in lieu of the contractual benefits addressed in Ms. Landrum's Amended Complaint and discovery responses;
8. Rates of interest that would or may have been available from any bank, lending, or investment company during the time period from when the Policy was purchased through trial;
9. Parol evidence regarding interpretation of the Policy;
10. Portions of Ms. Landrum's deposition that were changed pursuant to an errata sheet;
11. Alleged reasons to deny Ms. Landrum's claim, delay payment of Ms. Landrum's claim, and/or calculate payments and interest due under Ms. Landrum's claim that were not contemporaneously advanced by Conseco as a basis for its claims decisions and/or that were not ...
Buy This Entire Record For