Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01911/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

 In its May 3, 2007 Order setting trial and related dates, the Court allowed each side to file

five (5) motions in limine. Markel Insurance Company (“defendant”) filed no motions.

- 1 - 05cv1911

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WHISPERING WINDS CATHOLIC

CONFERENCE CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV1911 IEG (JMA)

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN

LIMINE and (2) ADDRESSING

MATTERS RELATED TO TRIAL

[Doc. No. 72]

vs.

MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, and

DOES 1 to 75, inclusive,

Defendants.

On June 22, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Whispering Winds Catholic Conference

Center’s (“plaintiff”) motion in limine1

 (Doc. No. 72) and Markel Insurance Company’s

(“defendant”) ex parte application (Doc. No. 73) to continue the trial schedule. The Court denied

defendant’s ex parte application. The Court heard oral argument on the motion in limine and other

matters related to trial preparation. The Court hereby ORDERS the following:

—The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s motion in limine to

limit experts’ testimony to opinions rendered in their Rule 26 written reports and depositions. The

Court finds that Markel has not shown the “substantial justification” required to introduce Rule 26

evidence that Markel failed to disclose timely. See Fed. R. Civ. 37(c)(1). The failure to disclose

Case 3:05-cv-01911-IEG-JMA Document 80 Filed 06/28/07 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 - 05cv1911

is not harmless because the introduction of the undisclosed evidence at trial would result in unfair

surprise to plaintiff. The motion is denied to the extent that the Court will allow Mr. Peter Fowler,

defendant’s construction costs expert, to offer rebuttal testimony concerning the opinion and cost

estimate of plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Ted Bumgardner. Id.; Fed. R. Evid. 703; Hill v. Reederei F.

Laeisz G.M.B.H., Rostock, 435 F.3d 404, 423 (3d Cir. 2006). 

—In addition to the seven trial days previously assigned (July 24-27, August 1-3), the

Court ADDS an eighth trial day: Tuesday, August 7.

—The Court ASSIGNS twenty (20) hours of trial time to plaintiff, and eighteen (18) hours

of trial time to defendant. 

—The Court SHALL ALLOW evidence concerning plaintiff’s claim for extra expenses. 

The Court’s ruling IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because of this ruling, Mr. Don Kojis SHALL

SIT for a supplemental deposition prior to the beginning of trial.

—In its February 27, 2007 Order on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court

held defendant was “liable for bad faith arising from its ongoing delay in paying the undisputed

Policy benefits.” (Doc. No. 55, at 11.) The amount of unpaid, undisputed Policy benefits was

$20,424. (Id. at 7.) The Court did not find that defendant acted in bad faith with respect to any

other aspect of plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, when the parties submit proposed jury instructions,

those instructions SHALL BE CONSISTENT with the Court’s prior finding that defendant acted

in bad faith only in its ongoing failure to pay $20,424 of undisputed Policy benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 28, 2007

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01911-IEG-JMA Document 80 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2