Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-24/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

ORDERS GRANTING USF&G AND

AMERICAN SPECIALTY’S MOTION

IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE

LEE FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY

OF ITS PUTATIVE EXPERT KENT

LEMASTERS

On January 12, 2007, the Motion in Limine No. 2 of

Plaintiff, Counterdefendant and Counterclaimant United States

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

Insurance Services, Inc. (“American Specialty”) to preclude

Defendant Lee Investments LLC (“Lee”) from offering testimony of

its expert, Kent Lemasters, 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

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 602 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

and American Specialty and memorandum of points and authorities

in opposition of Lee and after oral argument, 

IT IS ORDERED:

Motion in Limine No. 2 of USF&G and American Specialty is

denied, except as follows: Mr. Lemasters is barred from

testifying about water park classifications for purposes of

workers compensation insurance, the coverage afforded by workers

compensation insurance to any particular individual or group of

water park employees, and from testifying that employees engaging

in types of activities or specific activities are covered by

workers compensation insurance or within a particular

classification for workers compensation purposes. Mr. Lemasters

may state his experience with workers compensation coverage to

the extent he has any, such as ‘we employed these individuals

performing the work at issue, and we understand the law requires

that we have Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover their work,

and we have done that.’

DATED: February 1, 2007.

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

usf&gs order on mtn in limine 2

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 602 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2