Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-22/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

ORDER CONCERNING AON’S

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO

EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF

EDGAR CLARK

On Friday, January 12, 2007, Motion in Limine No. 4 by Aon

Risk Services, Inc. of Central California Insurance Services

(“Aon”) to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edgar Clark, came on

for hearing. Bruce T. Smyth of Charleston, Revich & Chamberlin,

LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiff United States Fidelity &

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

Services, Inc. (“ASI”). Daniel O. Jamison and Keith M. White of

Dowling, Aaron & Keeler appeared on behalf of Defendant Lee

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 600 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

Investments, LLC (“Lee”). Matthew S. Covington of DLA Piper US

LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant Aon. The Court, having

considered the moving and opposing papers and the arguments of

counsel, hereby orders that Aon’s motion in limine No. 4 to

exclude the testimony of Edgar Clark is denied in part and

granted in part, as follows:

1. The motion is granted as to any statements that Aon had

a “duty” to Lee. Mr. Clark shall not be permitted to testify

that Aon had a particular “duty,” or a “fiduciary duty,” to Lee

or any other party. However, Mr. Clark may testify about the

standards of performance for an insurance broker, provided that

he stated those opinions in his deposition and/or expert report.

2. The motion is granted as to any opinions as to what Aon

should have done under the circumstances. Mr. Clark shall not be

permitted to opine that Aon should have undertaken certain steps

such as remarketing the insurance policy on behalf of Lee. 

However, Clark may opine as to whether the applicable standard of

care required remarketing the policy and whether Aon complied

with the standard.

3. The motion is granted as to Mr. Clark’s opinion that

Aon should have obtained from Lee a written acknowledgment of

USF&G’s underwriting position.

4. In all other respects, the motion is denied. 

DATED: February 1, 2007.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

usf&g v. lee aons order on mtn in limine 4

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 600 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2