Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES FIDELITY &

GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE INVESTMENTS LLC d.b.a THE

ISLAND, a California limited

liability company and DIANA

CONLEY, an individual,

Defendants.

________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS,

CROSS-CLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINTS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN

LIMINE NO. 10 OF USF&G AND

AMERICAN SPECIALTY TO

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY

AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND

NEWLY RAISED ALLEGATIONS BY

AON AND LEE NOT SET FORTH

IN PLEADINGS AS TO THE

CONTENTION THAT LEE’S

MISREPRESENTATIONS MAY NOT

PROVIDE BASIS FOR

RESCISSION UNDER INSURANCE

CODE § 443 

On January 12, 2007, Motion in Limine No. 10 of Plaintiff,

Counterdefendant and Counterclaimant United States Fidelity &

Guaranty Company (“USF&G”) and American Specialty Insurance

Services, Inc. (“American Specialty”) to exclude evidence,

testimony and new legal arguments or newly raised allegations by

Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Central California Insurance Services

(“AON”) and Lee Investments, LLC (“Lee”) not set forth in

pleadings as to the contention that Lee’s misrepresentations may

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 607 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

not provide basis for rescission under Insurance Code § 443 claim

came on for hearing before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

After having considered the motion and moving papers

submitted by USF&G and American Specialty and memorandum of

points and authorities in opposition of Lee and Aon, 

IT IS ORDERED that Motion in Limine No. 10 of USF&G and

American Specialty is granted. The allegations of a defense

under Insurance Code § 443 were first raised in the Joint

Pretrial Statement by Lee and Aon, were not pleaded as an

affirmative defense by Lee or Aon and none of the allegations

that raise the defense were provided in responses to discovery. 

There is material prejudice to USF&G because the defense was

asserted too late. Except as set forth above, this Order is

without prejudice to Aon’s rights to comment, present evidence,

and argue issues relating to rescission to the extent it is

afforded to the other parties.

DATED: February 1, 2007.

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

usf&gs order on mtn in limine 10

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 607 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2