Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-02013/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-02013-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE ESTATE OF MARY

ROGERS, DECEASED, BY AND

THROUGH ITS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE

ARBERDELLA ROGERS,

Plaintiff;

vs.

GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:13-cv-02013-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Before the Court is Defendant Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company’s

(“Globe Life”) motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) and the Plaintiff’s crossmotion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 28). Also pending are several motions

submitted by the Plaintiff seeking to strike evidence submitted in support of Globe

Life’smotion for summary judgment (Docs. 12, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27), and one motion to

strike filed by Globe Life. (Doc. 36.) For the reasons stated below, both Globe Life’s

motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary

judgment are due to be denied.

Page 1 of 18

FILED

 2015 Jan-30 PM 03:19

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 18
I. Background

On May 21, 2009,Globe Life issued an accidental death life insurance policy for

the life of Gregory Rogers (“Mr. Rogers”). Benefits were payable to Mr. Rogers’

mother,Mary Rogers(“Mary”),“[u]pon receipt of due proof ofthe Accidental Death

of the insured while coverage of such Insured is in force.” (Doc. 20-1 at 4.)

1

“Accidental Death” is defined as “[d]eath due to Accidental Bodily Injury caused by

an Accident occuring while the insurance is in force.” (Doc. 20-1 at 5.) “Accidental

Bodily Injury” is defined as “[u]nexpected traumatic damage to the insured’s body,

of external origin.” (Id.)An “Accident” is defined as a “fortuitous event, unforeseen

and unintended.” (Id.)

Mr. Rogers was a fifty-one year old male from Pleasant Grove, Alabama who

worked as a truck driver. Mr. Rogerssuffered from diabetes and hypertension and took

medication to control those conditions. On June 25, 2011, Mr. Rogers departed his

home, either to go to a club or to meet a friend of his. Hisfamily never saw Mr. Rogers

alive again.

Mr. Rogers’ family, who were close with each other, began to worry when Mr.

Rogers did not return their callsthe night of June 25. The next day, Mr. Rogers’ sister

Because of the many individuals in this case with the last name of “Rogers,” the members 1 

of the Rogers family will be called by their first names in this opinion for ease of identification.

Page 2 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 18
Arberdella Rogers(“Arberdella”) began calling Nikki Rogers(“Nikki”),Mr. Rogers’

wife, early in the morning. Nikki did not answer, but eventually called and spoke to

Mary. That same day, Arberdella and Mary went to Mr. Rogers’ home and spoke to

Nikki. Nikki reportedly told them that she was unaware if Mr. Rogers had returned

home that night, speculated that he had potentially “wandered off” due to his

diabetes, and also began to talk about “all these women” that Mr. Rogerswasinvolved

with. (Doc. 20-3 at 18.) Mary then asked Nikki ifshe had reported Mr. Rogersmissing,

and Nikki said that she had. Arberdella and Mary told Nikki to contact them if she

heard from Mr. Rogers, and then left the house to drive around town looking for him.

Nikki had not actually filed a missing persons report for Mr. Rogers, although

she had called the police concerning his disappearance. Mary filed a missing person’s

report with the Pleasant Grove Police Department on June 27, 2011. On June 29, 2011,

Mr. Rogers was found deceased on the northbound entrance ramp to I-65 in Chilton

County. The second row seats of the truck had been folded back, and his body was

wedged between the back of the front seats and the floor in the back of the truck. (Doc.

29-2 at 13.) Mr. Rogers’ body was face down, with his knees flexed against the rear

passenger door. Several objectswere found in the truck, including Mr. Rogers’ wallet,

his phone, and several handguns that he owned. Two garage door openers were also

found in the truck, even though it was Mr. Rogers’ customary practice to keep one

Page 3 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 18
garage door opener in his truck and the other in Nikki’s car. (Doc. 20-3 at 29.)

Mr. Rogers’ body was badly decayed by the time itwasfound. On June 30, 2011,

Dr. Stephen Boudreau (“Dr. Boudreau”) performed an autopsy on the body. Dr.

Boudreau was unable to determine the specific cause of Mr. Rogers’ death due to the

advanced state of decomposition at the time of the autopsy. The autopsy revealed no

evidence of any injury to Mr. Rogers’ body. (Doc. 20-8 at 3.) The autopsy also listed

both the cause and manner of his death as “undetermined.” (Doc. 20-7 at 2.) Globe

Life denied Mary benefits under the insurance policy because it determined that Mr.

Rogers’ death was not an“accidental death” under the terms of the policy. On August

5, 2014, after speaking with Dr. Boudreau and examining the autopsy report, the

Chilton County Coroner Awlahjaday Agee (“Agee”) amended Mr. Rogers’ death

certificate to state that the manner of Mr. Rogers’ death was natural causes.

Plaintiff filed suit against Globe Life on September 23, 2013, alleging breach of

contract against Globe Life in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. Globe

Life removed the case to this Court on November 1, 2013.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant showsthat there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the

Page 4 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 18
suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). There is a “genuine dispute” asto a material fact “if the evidence is such that

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The trial judge

should not weigh the evidence but must simply determine whether there are any

genuine issues that should be resolved at trial. Id. at 249.

Inconsidering a motion for summary judgment, trial courts must give deference

to the non-moving party by “considering all of the evidence and the inferences it may

yield in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” McGee v. Sentinel Offender

Services, LLC, 719 F.3d 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Ellis v. England, 432 F. 3d

1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005)). In making a motion for summary judgment, “the moving

party hasthe burden of either negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s

case or showing that there is no evidence to prove a fact necessary to the nonmoving

party’s case.” Id. Although the trial courts must use caution when granting motions

for summary judgment, “[s]ummary judgment is properly regardednot as a disfavored

procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986).

The fact that there are cross-motions for summary judgment does not change

the standard. Even though both sides allege that no genuine issue of material fact

exists, the Court must still evaluate each motion under the Rule 56 standard,

Page 5 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 18
determining whether either party has established that it is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. See Griffis v. Delta Family-Care Disability, 723 F.2d 822, 824 (11th Cir.

1984). The Court has considered each motion in the light most favorable to the

opposing party in order to determine whether the Rule 56 standard has been met. See

Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996).

III. Analysis

A. Globe Life’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Globe Life has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. In a suit

on an accidental death policy provision, the “plaintiff has the burden of proving that

the death of the insured resulted,‘directly and independently of all other causes, from

bodily injuries effected solely through external, violent and accidental means.’” Nat’l

Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 234 So.2d 567, 572 (Ala. 1970) (quoting Inter-Ocean Cas.

Co. v. Foster, 147 So. 127 (Ala. 1933)); see also Roberson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 655 So.2d

953, 956 (Ala. 1995). A prima facie case is made when the plaintiff shows “(1) the

issuance of the policy,(2) death by accidental means and (3) notice to the insurer.” Id.

A certified copy of a death certificate is “presumptive evidence of the facts therein

stated. . . .” Ala. Code. § 12-21-101 (1975). However, the plaintiff has a right to

contradict the cause of death stated in the death certificate. UnionCentral Life Ins. Co.

v. Scott, 236 So.2d 328, 334-34 (Ala. 1970).

Page 6 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 18
In Allen, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a plaintiff had failed to submit

sufficient evidence to prove that the insured’s death was accidental under an

accidental death insurance policy. 234 So.2d at 572. The deceased in that case was

found by his mother in front of her home, after she went to answer the door bell. Id.

at 571. There was an abrasion on the side of the deceased’s head that was not touching

the sidewalk, and fresh blood was found next to his mouth. Id. His watch, the day’s

take from hisworkplace, the bag of groceries he had purchased minutes before, and his

wallet were all missing. Id. A detective testified that in his “professional opinion,” if

the deceased’s wallet or the day’stake were not on his body when found,“that would

indicate foul play.” Id. The deceased’s death certificate showed that an autopsy had

been performed and that his death was caused by heart disease. Id. at 572. The

Alabama Supreme Court determined that there was “no evidence that the insured’s

death was caused through ‘external, violent and accidental means.’” Id. Although

there was a number ofsuspicious circumstancessurrounding the insured’sdeath,such

asthe missing items and injuriesto his body,there was no actual evidence to show that

the death was caused by anything other than natural causes. Id. The detective’s

speculation as to what was indicated by these suspicious circumstances was not

sufficient evidence, because “[v]erdicts may not be rested upon pure supposition or

speculation, and the jury will not be permitted to merely guess as between a number

Page 7 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 18
of causes. . . .” Id. (quoting Colonial Life &AccidentIns. Co. v. Collins, 194 So. 2d 532,

537 (Ala. 1967)).

The only question in this case is whether Mr. Rogers died by accidental means

under the terms of the insurance policy. Globe Life points to a number of pieces of

evidence that indicate that Mr. Rogers died of natural causes, and arguesthat Plaintiff

is therefore excluded from recovering under the policy. This evidence includes the

amended death certificate listing Mr. Rogers’ manner of death as “natural cause[s]”

(Doc. 20-11 at4), which constitutes prima facie evidence that Mr. Rogers died of

natural causes. Globe Life also points to the autopsy performed by Dr. Boudreau (Doc.

20-7) and Dr. Boudreau’s declaration (Doc. 20-8), both ofwhich state that no physical

injury was found on the body. Dr. Boudreau, who performed the autopsy, and Agee,

the coroner who revised Mr. Rogers’ death certificate to state that he died of natural

causes, indicate that they believe he died of natural causes because there is no medical

evidence to indicate that he did not, rather than because they had actually determined

Mr. Rogers’ specific cause of death. (Doc. 20-10 at 4; Doc. 20-8 at 3.)

In response, Plaintiff points to only two relevant pieces of evidence. Plaintiffs’

primary piece of evidence is the opinion of her expert witness, Dr. James Lauridson

(“Dr. Lauridson”), a medical doctor and forensic pathologist. Dr. Lauridson stated

in his deposition that there “were not any conditions that would cause [Mr. Rogers]

Page 8 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 18
to die suddenly” or over a period of time naturally. (Doc. 39-1 at 5.) In his expert

report, he said that the positioning of Mr. Rogers body “required the action of one or

more persons,” and that therefore “the possibility is strong that other persons

contributed to or caused the death of Mr. Rogers.” (Doc. 29-2 at 13.) He stated that

there was no evidence that Mr. Rogers’ death was of natural causes, and that due to

the “unusual death scene itis my opinion beyond reasonable medical certainty that the

manner of death be considered homicide.” (Doc. 29-2 at 13.) The Plaintiff has also

included the affidavit ofAberdella,who statesthat Mr. Rogers and hiswife had a rocky

relationship; that Mr. Rogerswasin the habit of only keeping one garage door opener

in his truck, but two opners were found along with Mr. Rogers’ body; and that Mr.

Rogers did not go south of Birmingham, where his body was found. (Doc. 29-1 at 2.)

Globe Life arguesthat Dr. Lauridson’s opinion testimony is just like the opinion

testimony of the detective in Allen, which was determined to be insufficient evidence.

Like Allen, this case presents a situation where the death certificate states that the

insured died of natural causes,while the unusual circumstancessurrounding the death

give rise to the possibility that the death was caused by other means. What makesthis

case different from Allen is that Plaintiff has provided more evidence than simply a set

of unusual circumstancessurrounding Mr. Rogers’ death and a detective’sstatement

concerning possibilities. The Plaintiff has provided the expert opinion of a medical

Page 9 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 9 of 18
doctor and forensic pathologist who determined that to a “medical certainty” Mr.

Rogers death was not of natural causes but wasinstead a homicide. (Doc. 29-2 at 13.)

Additionally, the death certificate in this case only stated that Mr. Rogers died of

“natural causes” rather than providing a specific manner of death, like in Allen,

because a specific cause of death could not be determined. Rather, a determination was

made that due to the absence of evidence that Mr. Rogers died of anything other than

natural causes, hewas presumed to have died for that reason. (Doc. 20-10 at 3-4.)Both

sides have presented differing expert medical opinions as to the cause of Mr. Rogers

death—thisis enough to create a jury question on the issue ofwhether Plaintiff is owed

money under the accidental death policy. Therefore,Globe Life’smotion for summary

judgment is due to be denied.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Plaintiff has also filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.(Doc. 28.)

Globe Life filed a Motion to Strike the cross-motion on the grounds that it was filed

six days after the dispositive motion deadline in this case. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff then filed

a motion for a retroactive extension of the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 38.) For

the sake of efficiency, the Court will grant that motion, and take up Plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment at this time.

Plaintiff arguesfor summary judgment on only one particular issue: that Globe

Page 10 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 10 of 18
Life hasfailed to prove what Plaintiff callstheir “obvious” contention that Mr. Rogers

died as a result of failing to take his prescribed medication, because they have failed to

provide medical or scientific evidence establishing this as a possible cause of death.

(Doc. 29 at 8-10.) Plaintiff therefore arguesthat if she carries her initial burden at trial

of proving that Mr. Rogers’ death was “accidental” under the insurance policy, then

a verdict should be automatically entered in her favor as Globe Life would be unable

to prove its contention that Mr. Rogers died as a result of failing to take his

medication. (Doc. 29 at 11.)

However, as correctly pointed out by Globe Life, it has not made the contention

that Mr. Rogers’ death was caused by failure to take medication. (Doc. 30 at 4.) Globe

Life has asserted nothing more than that Mr. Rogers’ death was due to natural causes,

has provided expert medical testimony that Mr. Rogers died of natural causes, and it

is not required to do any more than that. The Court declines to make such a

determination as the Plaintiff requests on an argument that Globe Life has not made.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment is due to be denied.

C. Motions to Strike

1. Declaration of Dr. Boudreau and Affidavit of Agee

Plaintifffiled a motion to strike the declaration ofDr. Boudreau and the affidavit

of Agee (doc. 22), and Globe Life filed a response to that motion. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff

Page 11 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 11 of 18
then supplemented and amended the original motion (doc. 26), and Globe Life then

filed a supplemental response. (Doc. 33.) On summary judgment, a party “may object

that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that

would be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). A hearsay statement may be

considered “in passing on a motion for summary judgment if the statement could be

‘reduced to admissible evidence at trial’ or ‘reduced to admissible form.’” Macuba v.

Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Rowell v. BellSouthCorp., 433 F.3d

794, 800 (11th Cir. 2005).

The original motion to strike stated that Globe Life had failed to disclose, in its

initial disclosures, itsintent to rely upon the testimony of Dr. Boudreau and Agee until

it filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, well outside of the applicable limitations

for disclosure given in the Courts scheduling order. Plaintiff failsto recognize that she

requested that the Court extend the time for expert disclosures(doc. 12), and that the

Court did so. Globe Life has submitted evidence that it did indeed disclose its intent

to use the testimony of Boudreau and Agee within the revised deadlines. (Doc. 25-1 at

3-5.) Therefore, failure to disclose an intent to rely on the expert testimony of these

witnesses is not proper grounds to strike this evidence.

In its amended and supplemented motion to strike, Plaintiff states that

paragraph 5 of Agee’s affidavit should be stricken since it is based upon inadmissible

Page 12 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 12 of 18
hearsay. In that paragraph, Agee states that he “discussed the matter with Dr.

Boudreau,” and that based “upon my discussion of his findings” and Agee’s own

review of the autopsy, he decided to amend the death certificate to state that the

manner of death was natural causes. (Doc. 20-10 at 3.)

Hearsay is a statement that the “declarant does not make while testifying at the

current trial or hearing” and is offered “in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). A statement is “a person’s oral assertion, written

assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.” Fed. R.

Evid. 801(a). In this case, paragraph 5 is not hearsay; Agee is not relaying any

statements made by Boudreau during their discussion, but instead stating the opinion

that he developed and actions that he took after speaking with Boudreau and

performing his own review of the Autopsy Report. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to

strike the declaration of Dr. Boudreau and affidavit of Agee are due to be denied.

2. Amended Death Certificate

Plaintiff hasfiled both a motion to strike Mr. Rogers’ amended death certificate

(doc. 23) and an amended motion to strike the amended death certificate. (Doc. 27.)

Globe Life has filed a response. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff argues that the amended death

certificate should be struck from the record because she was not notified of Globe

Life’sintent to rely upon the amendedcertificate until after the discovery deadline had

Page 13 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 13 of 18
passed. Plaintiff also argues that the amended death certificate should be struck

because it is based upon inadmissible hearsay, as the coroner who prepared the

certificate stated that he amended it after talking to Dr. Boudreau. 

As an initial matter, Fed. R. Evid. 803(9) specifically provides that public

records of death, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty, are not 

excluded by the rule against hearsay. Plaintiff points to no reason why the fact that the

coroner who prepared the amended death certificate discussed the casewith someone

else before amending the certificate would make an admissible public record

inadmissible, and the Court cannot see one. Therefore, this reason to strike is

unavailing.

Asto filing after the discovery deadline,Plaintiff hasmade no argument that she

was in any way prejudiced by not being informed of the amended death certificate

before the close of discovery. Discovery was due by September 30, 2014. Globe Life

included the original death certificate in its initial disclosures to the Plaintiff. The

death certificate wasthen amended on August 5, 2014, and recorded by the Alabama

Department of Vital Statistics on August 19, 2014. Globe Life states that they only

learned that the death certificate had possibly been amended in early October of 2014,

and notified Plaintiff’s counsel of that possibility on October 2. Globe Life obtained

a copy of the amended certificate on October 9, and provided a copy to Plaintiff’s

Page 14 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 14 of 18
counsel via email on October 13. (Doc. 34-1.) The amended death certificate was a

public record that was equally available to the Plaintiff and Globe Life, and was

prepared by the Chilton County coroner, a public official, not by Globe Life. Due to

the lack of prejudice, the death certificate’s nature as a readily available public record,

Globe Life’s lack of control over the timing of the amendment, and the speed with

which Globe Life informed Plaintiff’s counsel of the amended certificate once it

discovered it, there is no reason not to consider the amended certificate in ruling on

summary judgment.Therefore,the motionsto strike the amendeddeath certificate are

due to be denied. 

3. Deposition Testimony of Michael Varden

The Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike some of the deposition testimony of

Michael Varden (doc. 21), and Globe Life has filed a response. (Doc. 31.) This

deposition testimony concerns a witness, Michael Varden, who says that he spoke to

Mr. Rogers on the side of the road shortly before Mr. Rogers death. The Plaintiffseeks

to strike several statements that it argues are inadmissible hearsay, and also to strike

testimony that was elicited during Mr. Varden’s deposition by what the Plaintiffstates

were leading questions. However, it was not necessary for the Court to use this

evidence in deciding upon the instant motionsfor summary judgment. Therefore,this

motion is due to be denied as moot.

Page 15 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 15 of 18
4. Expert Report and Affidavit of Dr. Lauridson

Globe Life has moved to strike the expert report and affidavit of Dr. Lauridson

offered by the Plaintiff in opposition to Globe Life’s motion for summary judgment.

(Doc. 36.) Globe Life arguesthat the expert report should not be admitted because it

is unsworn expert testimony without proper attestation; and that the affidavit should

not be admitted because it is a new opinion not disclosed in Dr. Lauridson’s expert

report. The Plaintiff’s response was to argue that this was “nothing more than a

technical defense” and submit Dr. Lauridson’s deposition testimony in support of his

expert opinion report. (Doc. 39.)

In Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259, 1273 n.26 (11th Cir. 2003), the Eleventh

Circuit addressed an unsworn “preliminary report by [an] expert witness” when

reviewing a grant ofsummary judgment. The court found that the unsworn report was

properly excluded, stating that:

Importantly, the alleged expert’s report is unsworn. Only “pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

affidavits” can be considered by the district court in reviewing a summary

judgment motion .. . Unsworn statements do not meet the requirements of[Rule

56] and cannot be considered by a district court in ruling on a summary judgment

motion. Because the preliminary report wassubmittedwithout attestation,ithad

no probative value. . . .

Id. (Internal citations omitted). Under this precedent, “an unsworn opinion can be

considered only if there are supporting affidavits, made on personal knowledge, that

Page 16 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 16 of 18
‘show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters related

therein.’” Southland Health Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Vernon, 887 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1169

(N.D. Ala. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4)).

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff has submitted sworn deposition testimony

in which Dr. Lauridson has attested to his opinions, this Court will consider hisreport

on summary judgment. Therefore this portion of Globe Life’s motion is due to be

denied.

Dr. Lauridson’s affidavit, on the other hand, is solely concerned with the

deposition testimony of Gregory Varden, which wasthe subject of another motion to

strike. Because it was not necessary for the Court to consider that testimony in ruling

upon summary judgment, that portion of this motion concerning the related affidavit

is due to be denied as moot. 

5. Opinion Testimony of Proposed Expert William Gault

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to exclude the testimony of proposed expert

William Gault. (Doc. 24.) As correctly pointed out by Globe Life, Gault’s testimony

was not offered by Globe Life as evidence on summary judgment. (Doc. 32.)

Therefore, this motion is due to be denied as moot. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Globe Life’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 

Page 17 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 17 of 18
18)is due to be DENIED. Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment (Doc.

28)is due to be DENIED. Plaintiff’smotionsto strike the declaration ofBoudreau and

the affidavit of Agee (Doc.22, 26) are due to be DENIED. Plaintiff’s motionsto strike

Mr. Rogers’ amended death certificate are due to be DENIED. (Doc. 23, 27.)

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the deposition testimony of Varden is DENIED as moot.

(Doc. 21.) Globe Life’s motion to strike the expert report and affidavit of Dr.

Lauridson is partially DENIED and partially DENIED as moot. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiff’s

motion to exclude the testimony of proposed witness William Gault is DENIED as

moot. (Doc. 24.)

A separate order will be entered.

Done this 30 day of January 2015. th

L. SCOTT COOGLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

177825

Page 18 of 18

Case 2:13-cv-02013-LSC Document 41 Filed 01/30/15 Page 18 of 18