Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_03-cv-02190/USCOURTS-arwd-2_03-cv-02190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

Although not stated in either its motion or brief, 1

Defendant’s theory appears to be that the fire originated on the

floor of the master bathroom closet. (Plaintiffs’ Brief in

Support of Response to Defendant’s First Motion in Limine, Doc.

30 at 7).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

BILL MCALISTER AND PLAINTIFFS

SHARLYN MCALISTER

VS. CASE NO. 03-2190 

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Defendant’s second motion in

limine (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 37), Defendant’s reply

(Doc. 42), Defendant’s motion for ruling on Defendant’s second

motion in limine (Doc. 53) and Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 55).

Defendant’s motion for ruling on Defendant’s second motion in

limine is GRANTED. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendant’s

second motion in limine is DENIED. 

Background

On March 20, 2003, Plaintiffs sustained a fire loss to their

real and personal property. At the time of the fire, Plaintiffs’

property was insured by Defendant under a homeowners’ liability

insurance policy. Defendant investigated the cause and origin of

the fire and determined it was incendiary in nature. Defendant 1

denied Plaintiffs’ claim for their losses.

Plaintiffs contend the fire originated in or near a plastic

Case 2:03-cv-02190-RTD Document 56 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
2

light fixture junction box located in the ceiling of the master

bathroom closet. Plaintiffs also contend that the fire melted the

plastic light fixture junction box causing the light fixture to

fall to the ground creating an opening between the attic and the

closet space below where the fire then ignited items in the closet.

Plaintiffs seek to demonstrate the melting of a plastic light

fixture junction box to show that a fixture so attached can fall to

the ground. Plaintiffs will photograph the demonstration outside

the courtroom and present the photographs during trial through the

testimony of Tommy Seamans, an electrician. Defendant moves the

Court to preclude the Plaintiffs from introducing the photographs

of the demonstration.

Discussion

The admissibility of experimental and demonstrative evidence

“depends upon a foundational showing of substantial similarity

between the tests conducted and what they purport to represent.”

Kehm v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 724 F.2d 613, 624 (8 Cir. th

1983); see also Ramseyer v. General Motors Corp., 417 F.2d 859, 864

(8 Cir. 1969). Plaintiffs contend the demonstration will th

represent that the plastic light fixture junction box is commonly

used and was used in Plaintiff’s home; that such boxes can melt

easily when exposed to heat; and that when a box melts, the light

fixture being held can fall to the ground. Defendant contends the

demonstration will not be conducted under “substantially similar”

circumstances. Defendant sets forth several discrepancies between

the actual conditions on the date of the fire and the

Case 2:03-cv-02190-RTD Document 56 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
The master bathroom closet would not be present in the 2

demonstration; any materials located in that closet would not be

present, including combustible materials; temperature, wind,

moisture, and other atmospheric conditions will be different;

there would be no branch conductors or other electrical wiring

which were present in and around the light fixture; there would

be no switches or receptacles, no two-by-six joists, no gas pipes

or appliances as were present in the master bathroom closet on

the date of the fire; and, the plastic light fixture junction box

may not be of the same type that was used in the master bathroom

closet.

3

demonstration. However, perfect identity between experimental and 2

actual conditions is neither attainable nor required. Ramseyer,

417 F.2d at 864. Dissimilarities affect the weight of the

evidence, not its admissibility. Id. 

We are guided in our analysis first by the definition of

relevant evidence in Federal Rule of Evidence 401. The Rule states

that “relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it

would be without the evidence.” Plaintiffs contend the fire

originated in or near the plastic light fixture junction box.

Plaintiffs propose to show the plastic box will melt when exposed

to fire. Plaintiffs contend that when the plastic box melts it

allows the light fixture to fall which will create an opening from

the attic space to the closet below allowing fire to fall into the

closet and ignite. We find the demonstration to be relevant for

the jury to visualize any melting of the box and any falling of the

light fixture. This may aid in the determination of whether the

fire accidentally started in or near the junction box and fell to

Case 2:03-cv-02190-RTD Document 56 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
4

the floor. 

Defendant contends the probative value is outweighed by the

prejudicial effect as stated in Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendant does

not specifically state what prejudicial effect the demonstration

will have. The probative value of any demonstration outweighs the

danger of unfair prejudice. Defendant will have the full

opportunity to cross-examine the witness and rebut his testimony.

Defendant contends the proposed demonstration is scientific in

nature requiring the testimony of an expert. If scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a

witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,

training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an

opinion or otherwise. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. Plaintiffs contend

their witness is not an expert witness. Plaintiffs contend the

witness will testify that the plastic junction box is commonly used

in homes and was used in Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs’ witness

will further testify that the box is made of plastic and that he

has observed this plastic box melting when exposed to heat.

Plaintiff contends their witness will not testify as to any

opinion. We do not find that this type of testimony requires an

expert and the witness’ testimony, as set forth by Plaintiffs, will

merely state his observations. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for ruling on Defendant’s

second motion in limine is GRANTED. Defendant’s second motion in

limine is DENIED, but may be renewed at trial. Trial remains set

for the week of August 7, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 2:03-cv-02190-RTD Document 56 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Robert T. Dawson

Hon. Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

Case 2:03-cv-02190-RTD Document 56 Filed 06/09/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>