Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-25/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 GRANTING MOTION IN

LIMINE NO. 3 OF USF&G AND

AMERICAN SPECIALTY

PRECLUDING LEE’S EXPERT

EDGAR CLARK FROM TESTIFYING

RE USF&G OR AMERICAN

SPECIALTY’S ALLEGED BREACH

OF DUTY TO LEE 

On January 12, 2007, the Motion in Limine No. 3 of

Plaintiff, Counterdefendant and Counterclaimant United States

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

Insurance Services, Inc. (“American Specialty”) for an order

precluding Lee Investments LLC’s (“Lee”) expert Edgar Clark from

testifying regarding USF&G’s or American Specialty’s alleged

breach of duty to Lee came on for a hearing before the Honorable

Oliver W. Wanger, United States District Judge. After having

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 603 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

considered the motion and moving papers submitted by USF&G and

American Specialty and memorandum of points and authorities in

opposition of Lee and after oral argument,

IT IS ORDERED:

Motion in Limine No. 3 of USF&G and American Specialty is

granted and denied as follows: 

(1) Lee’s expert, Edgar Clark, shall not be permitted to

testify that the filing of the complaint for rescission is not in

conformance with the standard of care of American Specialty,

because the determination of the merits of filing a claim for

rescission is a legal opinion and is not an issue to be tried in

this trial phase.

(2) Mr. Clark is precluded from testifying that American

Specialty breached any duty because such opinion is a legal

conclusion not to be made by an expert witness. Mr. Clark should

instead express his opinions by reference to the applicable

“standard of care” to the extent he expressed it in his

deposition and report, instead of “duty” which is a legal issue

for the court.

(3) Mr. Clark shall not be permitted to testify that any

party failed to “properly” act or failed to act because such term

is ambiguous.

DATED: February 1, 2007.

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

usf&gs order on mtn in limine 3

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 603 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2