Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06006/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06006-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 05-6006

DON EASLEY and 

RICHARD PERCEFULL DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Currently before the Court is State Farm’s (“Plaintiff”)

motion in limine regarding the use of the definitions of an

“employee” contained within the Arkansas’ Wage Discrimination and

Workers’ Compensation laws (Docs. 43 & 44) and Separate Defendant

Richard Percefull’s Response (Doc. 46). 

This is a diversity Declaratory Judgment action against

Separate Defendants Easley and Percefull concerning an insurance

contract. Easley was seriously injured while assisting Percefull

in transporting property with a truck and trailer owned by Lois

Delarosa, Plaintiff’s named insured. Plaintiff seeks to preclude

coverage based upon an exclusion to the policy which does not

provide coverage for bodily injury to employees of an insured

arising out of their employment. Plaintiff contends Easley was an

employee of Percefull at the time of the injury. 

Percefull seeks to use as an exhibit portions of Arkansas Code

Annotated §§ 11-9-102 and 11-4-607, which define the word

“employee”. Plaintiff seeks to exclude any references to the

definition of “employee” in those statutes pursuant to Federal

Case 6:05-cv-06006-RTD Document 49 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. Percefull responds that the

exhibits will aid the jury in determining whether Easley was an

“employee” under the terms of the policy at the time of the

accident.

This Court has previously determined the policy exclusion is

unambiguous. (Doc. 37). Likewise, the word “employee”, as

reflected in the policy exclusion, is unambiguous. Where there is

no ambiguity, contracts of insurance, like other contracts must be

construed according to the terms which the parties have used, to be

taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.

Walker v. Countryside Casualty Co., 239 Ark. 1085, 1087 (1965)

(quoting Quinn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, Ins., 238 S.C. 301,

120 S.E.2d 15, 16). It would be improper to use the definitions of

“employee” as sought by Separate Defendant Percefull and

accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED. However,

this evidence could become relevant but the Court should be

addressed at bar side out of the presence of the jury before

directing questions in this area. Jury Trial remains scheduled for

January 23, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 day of January, 2006. th

/s/Robert T. Dawson

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

 

Case 6:05-cv-06006-RTD Document 49 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>