Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-23/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 FIDELITsY &

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. 1 TO EXCLUDE

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR LEVINE,

AN EXPERT WITNESS

DESIGNATED BY LEE, ON

INTERPRETATION OF LETTERS

AND INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW 

The Motion in Limine No. 1 of Plaintiff, Counterdefendant

and Counterclaimant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

(“USF&G”) and American Specialty Insurance Services, Inc.

(“American Specialty” to exclude testimony of Arthur Levine, an

expert witness designated by Defendant Lee Investment LLC

(“Lee”), on interpretation of letters and interpretations of law

came on for hearing before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, Untied

States District Judge, on January 12, 2007. 

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 601 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

After having 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:

(1) Motion in Limine No. 1 of USF&G and American Specialty

is granted.

(2) The interpretation of provisions of the Uniform

Statistical Reporting Plan of the Workers Compensation Insurance

Bureau is a matter of law and Lee’s expert, Arthur Levine, is

barred from testifying as to conclusions of law because the Court

will provide such conclusions in its jury instructions. Levine

can, however, testify as to how Workers’ Compensation

Classifications are developed and what they mean. Mr. Levine can

describe that if a category is so defined and how that relates to

an insurer’s policy. Mr. Levine may testify about what happens

in the industry by way of custom and practice, and he may explain

how the rules are made.

(3) Mr. Levine is barred from testifying as to what any of

the parties, including USF&G, American Specialty or Aon, should

have done. However, if there is a standard by which an insurer

would practice issuing a policy, then as long as that can be

described foundationally as to what the requirements are of such

a standard, and its applicability to an insurer, then an expert

may opine that the insurer did or did not meet that standard and

either why or why not.

(4) Mr. Levine is barred from testifying as to what any of

the parties intended in their letters and correspondence

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 601 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

concerning this dispute, in particular, the August 12, 1998

letter, because such matters are issues of intent and credibility

to be determined by the jury.

(5) Mr. Levine is barred from testifying as to what Lee

intended or American Specialty intended in such letters.

(6) Mr. Levine is additionally barred from testifying as

to what the August 12, 1998 letter “should have been” interpreted

to mean, “could only mean,” or what it does mean.

(7) Mr. Levine is barred from testifying as to any legal

conclusion that the work of water slide fabrication requires a

separate classification.

(8) Aon may cross-examine Mr. Levine concerning his

opinions about Aon only if those opinions are not barred by the

Court’s rulings on the motions in limine.

DATED: February 1, 2007.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_________

Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

usf&gs order on mtn in limine 1

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 601 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 3