SHAVE
v.
SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted defendant Southern-Owners Insurance Company's unopposed motion in limine to exclude various categories of evidence and argument in a pending uninsured motorist benefits dispute, including settlement negotiations, financial resource references, improper jury arguments, and certain expert witness credibility bolstering.
The court granted defendant's unopposed motion in limine, excluding all eight categories of evidence and argument from trial, finding that the parties agreed these issues should not be raised before the jury.
[1] Motions in limine are generally disfavored and evidence is excluded only if clearly inadmissible for any purpose.
[2] Settlement negotiations, offers of judgment, and mediation are inadmissible at trial.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motion in limine is a 'motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.'”
Establishes the definition and purpose of a motion in limine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Kenneth Shave alleges he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in November 2021 and seeks uninsured motorist benefits from Southern-…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credibility Of Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant Southern-Owners Insurance Company's Unopposed Omnibus Motion in Limine. (Doc. 25). A motion in limine is a “motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). These motions “are generally disfavored.” Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). "Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose." Id. (cleaned up).
Plaintiff Kenneth Shave alleges he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in November 2021 and now seeks uninsured motorist benefits from Defendant. (Doc. 9). This case is set for trial in June 2025. (Doc. 20).
Defendant moves to exclude the following evidence and argument at trial:
* reference to, or documents evidencing, settlement negotiations or demands between the parties including, but not limited to, any Proposals for Settlement/Offers of Judgment or matters involved at mediation; * discussion of the applicable law and its meaning during voir dire and opening statements; * reference to Plaintiffs financial resources or need for financial compensation; * reference to Defendant's superior financial resources vis-a-vis Plaintiff; * impermissible “golden rule” arguments in which Plaintiff and/or his counsel exhorts the jury to place itself in a party's shoes with respect to damages; * statements to the jury regarding “teaching the defendant a lesson” or sending a message to the community; * reference to other lawsuits that have been brought against Defendant; and
* attempts to bolster the credibility or qualification of one or more of Plaintiff's expert witnesses by eliciting testimony regarding the credibility or credentials of such witnesses or the sufficiency of the opinions offered by such witnesses.
Plaintiff does not object to the motion. (Doc. 25 at 7). As the parties agree that these issues should not be raised or argued before a jury, the Court grants the motion as unopposed.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant's Unopposed Omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc. 25) is GRANTED as unopposed.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 21, 2024.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
CDO Invs., LLC v. Knauf Gips KG (M.D. Fla. 2024)…tion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). These motions “are generally disfavored.” Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). “Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Id. “A motion ---PAGE 1--- in limine is not the proper vehicle to resolve substantive issues, to test issues of law…
-
Ankner v. United States (M.D. Fla. 2024)…tion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). These motions "are generally disfavored." Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). "Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose." Id. "A motion in limine is not the proper vehicle to resolve substantive issues, to test issues of law, or to addres…
-
Cooper v. Milliman, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ence is actually - 3 - ---PAGE 4--- Case 2:23-cv-00028-JES-NPM Document 135 Filed 04/28/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID 2313 offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). These motions "are generally disfavored." Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). "Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose." Id. Additionally, as the Supreme Court has cautioned: The ruling is subject to change when the case unfolds…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984)
- CDO Invs., LLC v. Knauf Gips KG (M.D. Fla. 2024)