Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00133/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00133-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 7/16/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., DOES 1 through 10,

Inclusive,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1

[re: docket no. 37, 38, 40, 44]

I. BACKGROUND

In this subrogation action, Plaintiff Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”)

seeks to recover damages suffered by its insureds, Ilene and Norman Sokoloff. The Sokoloffs

had a hot water dispenser manufactured by Emerson Electric Company (“Emerson”) installed in

their home. In July 2003, the Sokoloffs discovered significant water and mold damage that they

attributed to a leak in the hot water dispenser. Safeco paid the Sokoloffs under their

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 9
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

 The Court also heard limited argument regarding Emerson’s third motion in limine to 2

exclude evidence regarding the claimed lost rental value of the Sokoloffs’ home and furniture. In

light of the agreement of counsel at oral argument that the Court need not resolve the unopposed

motions at this time, the Court will not adjudicate this motion. However, as it observed at oral

argument, the Court notes that it is skeptical that, absent an independent foundation, the

homeowner’s exception extends as far as testimony regarding the rental value of a home or

furniture.

2

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

homeowner’s insurance policy and obtained an assignment of rights with respect to the

Sokoloffs’ claims against Emerson.

Safeco filed the instant action against Emerson in the Santa Clara Superior Court on

November 4, 2004, seeking recovery under theories of strict products liability, negligence and

breach of warranty. Emerson removed the action to this Court on January 7, 2005 on the basis of

diversity of citizenship. On March 19, 2007, Safeco filed an amended complaint, seeking further

damages for uninsured loss of use of the home. On March 30, 2007, Emerson answered the

amended complaint. 

The parties move in limine to exclude certain evidence at trial. Opposition has been filed

to a subset of the motions in limine. The Court heard oral argument on the opposed motions on

July 12, 2007. Those motions will be disposed of as set forth below. 2

II. DISCUSSION

1. Motions in Limine Filed by Safeco

a. Second Safeco Motion in Limine

Safeco moves to exclude references to expert testimony or argument based upon the

testimony of experts. It argues that expert witness opinion testimony is improper and

unnecessary because: (1) Safeco must show only that the product failed to perform as the

ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner;

and (2) because Ilene Sokoloff is permitted to testify to the relationship between the benefits of

the challenged design and the risks of danger inherent in such design. This argument raises two

separate questions: whether Sokoloff may testify as to these questions; and, if so, whether that

fact would preclude Emerson from presenting the testimony of its own expert. The first question

is the subject of Emerson’s second motion in limine and will be discussed below. With respect

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 9
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

3

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

to the second question, Safeco cites no authority indicating that, even if it may present its case

without recourse to expert testimony, that fact precludes Emerson from presenting its own expert

testimony. As Emerson notes, Safeco does not challenge the qualifications of any expert

designated by Emerson. Such an expert may be able to testify as to his or her specialized

knowledge regarding subjects including the product design or other potential causes of leakage. 

Accordingly, the motion will be denied. However, to the extent that Safeco proceeds on a theory

that the product failed to do what an ordinary consumer would expect, “expert witnesses may not

be used to demonstrate what an ordinary consumer would or should expect.” Soule v. General

Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548, 567 (1994). 

b. Third Safeco Motion in Limine

Safeco moves to exclude the testimony of Emerson’s employee Terry Snyder on the basis

that Snyder was not identified as an expert in Emerson’s pretrial discovery or disclosure of expert

witnesses. Emerson responds that it does not intend to call Snyder to offer an expert evaluation

of the design of the hot water dispenser at issue. Rather, Emerson intends to call Snyder to

testify to his role in the development and design of the hot water dispenser. Emerson states that

Snyder will be a percipient witness and that his testimony will demonstrate the rigorous and

conscientious process that was undertaken by Emerson in designing the hot water dispenser. As

Emerson argues, Snyder may offer lay opinions rationally based upon his perceptions. See Fed.

R. Evid. 701. Accordingly, the motion will be granted to the extent that it seeks to prohibit

Snyder from testifying as an expert witness and denied to the extent that it seeks to prohibit

Snyder from testifying as a percipient witness and offering permissible lay opinions.

c. Fourth Safeco Motion in Limine

Safeco moves to preclude Emerson’s expert from testifying as to the necessity of

warnings. This motion overlaps with Emerson’s motion to exclude testimony as to the absence

of warnings. As discussed below, Emerson’s motion to exclude evidence as to a failure to warn

will be granted to the extent that Safeco seeks to proceed on a failure to warn theory, and denied

to the extent that the absence of warnings is relevant to a consumer expectations theory. Because

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 9
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

 As discussed above, expert testimony is not permissible as to what a consumer might 3

reasonably expect from a product.

 For example, Safeco may introduce photographs of an example hot water dispenser, or 4

of the hot water dispenser before it was removed from under the Sokoloffs’ sink, but not

photographs of the hot water dispenser after it was tested.

4

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

that ruling disposes of the issues presented in this motion, this motion will be denied as moot. 3

2. Motions in Limine Filed by Emerson

a. First Emerson Motion in Limine

Emerson moves to preclude Safeco from presenting any evidence regarding the hot water

dispenser because of Safeco’s alleged negligent destructive testing of the unit used by the

Sokoloffs. Emerson asserts that the two testing services used by Safeco, DPI and BEAR, both

mishandled the evidence before it was sent to Emerson. It asserts that DPI exposed the hot water

dispenser to excessive pressure and rust, and that BEAR cut a large rectangular hole in the tank

cover that permanently altered the stiffness of the cover. Safeco disputes Emerson’s assertion

that DPI mishandled the evidence, but does not respond to Emerson’s contention that BEAR cut

a hole in the tank cover. In light of Safeco’s failure to respond to the asserted destructive testing

performed by BEAR, the Court concludes that such testing rendered Emerson unable to perform

relevant tests upon the evidence or to evaluate the results of the tests performed by Safeco’s

experts. As a result, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted to the extent that it

seeks the exclusion of evidence pertaining to testing performed by DPI or BEAR. See e.g.

Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Engineering & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 369 (9th Cir. 1992)

(citing Fire Ins. Exch. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648 (1987) for the proposition that it is

not an abuse of discretion to exclude expert testimony when evidence has been destroyed).

However, the motion will be denied to the extent that it seeks to exclude pieces of evidence that

are independent of the testing, such as photographs, illustrations, product manuals, or exemplars

that are similar to the dispenser at issue.4

b. Second Emerson Motion in Limine

Emerson moves to preclude Safeco from presenting evidence that the hot water dispenser

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 4 of 9
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

 As discussed below, the Court concludes that Safeco can establish causation through 5

the testimony of Ilene Sokoloff regarding the source of the leak. Accordingly, the Court rejects

Emerson’s argument that Safeco cannot proceed on a customer expectation theory because of a

failure to show causation.

 “Under California law, a manufacturer is strictly liable for injuries caused by a product

6

that is (1) defectively manufactured, (2) defectively designed, or (3) distributed without adequate

instructions or warnings of its potential for harm. Three methods may be utilized in order to

demonstrate a design defect: (1) the consumer expectations test shows that the product failed to

perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when it is used in an intended or

5

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

at issue in this action was designed defectively. Safeco argues that it may present such evidence

in the context of either of the two theories identified by the California Supreme Court in Barker

v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978) (holding that a product is defective in design if “the

product fails to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect when the product is used

as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner,” or the “benefits of the challenged design do

not outweigh the risks of danger inherent in the design”). The first of these theories, the

consumer expectation test, “is reserved for cases in which the everyday experience of the

product’s users permits a conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety

assumptions, and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion about the merits of the design.” 

Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548, 567 (1994) (emphasis in original). The instant

action is such a case, as it involves the reasonable expectation, based on everyday experience,

that a hot water dispenser will not leak; in other words, it does not involve “obscure components

under complex circumstances.” Id. at 570. Accordingly, the motion will be denied to the extent

that it seeks to preclude Safeco from proceeding on the theory that the product was defectively

designed because it failed to meet the expectations of ordinary customers. However, the Court 5

also concludes that, in the absence of an identified expert, Safeco may not present testimony as to

the risks and benefits of the hot water dispenser’s design. Accordingly, Safeco may not proceed

on such a theory as an affirmative claim.

Emerson also moves to exclude evidence of a failure to provide warnings. The failure to

provide warnings is both a separate theory of strict liability under California law and a manner of

establishing the existence of a design defect. Because Safeco did not plead failure to warn in its 6

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 5 of 9
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

reasonably foreseeable manner; (2) the risk-benefit test balances the risk of danger inherent in the

challenged design versus the feasibility of a safer design, the cost of a safer design, the gravity of

the danger, and the adverse consequences to the product of a safer design; and (3) the

failure-to-warn test imposes upon the manufacturer or retailer liability for the failure to warn of

known or knowable inherent dangers in the product.” Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co., 91

Cal.App.4th 698, 715-16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

 Safeco argued at the hearing that its original form pleading necessarily included a 7

failure to warn theory. However, the FAC superseded that complaint and makes no reference to

a failure to warn.

6

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

FAC or identify evidence that a warning would have changed the Sokoloffs’ behavior, it may not

proceed to trial on an independent failure to warn theory. However, as discussed at oral

7

argument, it may be possible for evidence of an absence of warnings to form part of a reasonable

expectations theory. For example, evidence of the absence of a warning as to proper use may be

relevant to the requirement, imposed by the reasonable expectations theory, that a product was

used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner. See Boeken v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 127

Cal.App.4th 1640, 1668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Safeco

should not be barred from presenting evidence of the absence of a warning. However, this ruling

is without prejudice to any trial objection by Emerson to ensure that Safeco does not proceed on

a implied failure to warn theory. 

c. Fourth Emerson Motion in Limine

Emerson moves to exclude any evidence that a defect in the hot water dispenser at issue

in this action caused or contributed to any of the damages claimed by Safeco. Emerson argues

that Safeco has identified no witness who can testify that a leak in the hot water dispenser caused

the damage rather than some other cause. Emerson points to the deposition testimony of two

field adjusters and one property claims specialist, each of whom testified to his or her ignorance

of the cause of the damage. However, as Safeco notes, Ilene Sokoloff testified as follows at her

deposition:

Q. What did you see when you looked under the island sink?

A. We saw it was wet and dirty and it looked like water was dripping from

the hot water dispenser. I put my hand in to feel around on everything to

see where it was.

Q. Do you remember actually seeing the water dripping from the dispenser?

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall – do you recall how much water was dripping from the

dispenser? That’s a poorly phrased question. I was worried about that.

What were the rate from the drip of the dispenser if you can recall?

A. I don’t know how to quantify rate.

Q. You said – did you say you felt the dispenser –

A. I looked at it, I saw it and I felt it.

Q. And how did you feel it?

A. Wet.

Q. What part of the dispenser were you feeling?

A. Where the wire was coming out was a hole that it came through and the

water was coming out of there.

Q. And when you say “wire,” are you referring to the cord to plug it in?

A. Yes.

Q. And the cord felt wet?

A. Yes.

Cole Decl. Ex. B. Accordingly, Ilene Sokoloff is competent to testify that water dripped from the

hot water dispenser and caused some amount of damage to the floor. Emerson argues, however,

that this does not mean that Ilene Sokoloff can testify to the existence of a defect in the product. 

Distinguishing between the observed drip and an alleged leak in the tank, Emerson argues that

Ilene Sokoloff has no expertise that would allow her to testify to the cause of the drip. However,

the Court concludes that Ilene Sokoloff may provide lay opinion testimony, rationally based upon

her own perception, that the drip came from a leak in the hot water dispenser. While Safeco may

not have presented evidence that rules out the possibility that another water source caused the

drip or that a more limited set of repairs could have been performed, such gaps in the evidence

are not grounds for granting the instant motion. Instead, Emerson may attempt to impeach

Safeco’s evidence and present evidence suggesting an alternative cause of the damage. 

Accordingly, the motion will be denied. This ruling does not relieve Safeco of establishing an

adequate foundation for any testimony by its employees as to their observations and analysis of

the event underlying this action. Nor is it with prejudice to any objection that Emerson may

make to such testimony at trial, or does it preclude any motion by Emerson at trial based upon

the insufficiency of the evidence. 

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Safeco’s second motion in limine is DENIED.

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

2. Safeco’s third motion in limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part.

3. Safeco’s fourth motion in limine is DENIED as moot.

4. Emerson’s first motion in limine is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part.

5. Emerson’s second motion in limine is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part.

6. Emerson’s fourth motion in limine is DENIED.

DATED: July 16, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Case No. C 05-0133 JF

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Stephen Nelson Cole scole@colenetlaw.com, kbradley@colenetlaw.com

Bita Abdollahi Karabian bkarabian@schiffhardin.com, calendar@mjllp.com

Patrick Mark Mahoney pmahoney@schiffhardin.com

Jeffrey R. Williams jwilliams@mjllp.com, kmr@mjllp.com, asl@mjllp.com,

calendar@mjllp.com

Michael John Wise mwise@colenetlaw.com, kbradley@colenetlaw.com

Case 5:05-cv-00133-JF Document 70 Filed 07/16/07 Page 9 of 9