Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02530/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Family Insurance Company
Appellee
Gary Samuels
Appellant
Sondra Samuels
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2530

___________

Gary Samuels; Sondra Samuels, *

*

Plaintiffs-Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

American Family Insurance Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2006

Filed: March 14, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary and Sondra Samuels were involved in an automobile accident and sought

coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of their insurance policy with

American Family Insurance Company (“American Family”). After a jury verdict in

favor of American Family, the Samuels appeal, arguing that the district court1

 erred

in excluding pleadings filed in a separate state court action. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2530 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020407
-2-

I.

On the morning of November 23, 2000, Gary Samuels was driving a rented

white Chevrolet Lumina on Interstate 35 in McClain County, Oklahoma. Sondra

Samuels was asleep in the front passenger seat. Gary Samuels testified that he was

driving in the left of the two southbound lanes when his vehicle was clipped by an

unknown white vehicle. The unknown vehicle then cut in front of the Samuels’

vehicle, causing Gary to lose control and drive into the right southbound lane. The

Samuels’ vehicle hit the rear of a blue Chevrolet Astro van traveling in the right

southbound lane, causing the van to roll several times, ejecting two passengers. All

occupants of the van sustained injuries and one of the ejected passengers was killed.

At the time of the accident, the Samuels had an automobile insurance policy

with American Family. Their insurance policy provided liability insurance coverage

as well as uninsured motorist coverage. The occupants of the van brought a civil suit

against Gary Samuels in Oklahoma state court. As obligated under the insurance

policy, American Family retained counsel to represent Gary Samuels in this suit. The

retained counsel filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ petition, stating as an affirmative

defense: “The injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs were caused by the negligence of a

non-party and/or third party over whom the Defendant had no control.”

The Samuels sustained bodily injuries from the accident and filed an uninsured

motorist claim under their policy with American Family, alleging that the accident and

their resulting injuries were caused by a “phantom” or hit-and-run vehicle. American

Family denied the claim, stating that Gary Samuels’ operation of his vehicle was the

sole cause of the accident and there was no phantom vehicle involved. The Samuels

brought suit in district court under diversity jurisdiction to recover compensatory

damages and sought relief under the Missouri vexatious refusal-to-pay statute. 

Appellate Case: 05-2530 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020407
-3-

Oklahoma State Trooper Douglass George arrived after the accident and

conducted an investigation. He interviewed Gary Samuels and Steve and Wanda

Winters, witnesses to the accident, and asked everyone to provide written statements.

Trooper George’s notes indicate that Wanda Winters told him that just prior to the

accident she observed what appeared to be a white Nissan Maxima traveling 90 miles

per hour pass the vehicle in which she was traveling. His report then indicates that

this unknown vehicle cut directly in front of the Samuels’ vehicle, causing the

accident as described by Gary Samuels. 

Wanda Winters’ written statement does not describe the accident in this

manner. Rather, it describes a single small white car passing her vehicle at around 90

miles per hour and hitting the back of the van, knocking the van out of control. At

trial, Wanda and Mark Winters both testified that the Samuels’ vehicle passed their

car on the right side at a high rate of speed. The Winters testified that the Samuels’

vehicle attempted to move into the left lane to avoid contact with the van, but instead

hit the van, causing it to lose control and roll off the highway. The Winters recalled

that after the accident, a second white car briefly stopped at the scene.

The Samuels sought to introduce the pleadings from the Oklahoma lawsuit in

the trial of their case against American Family. According to the Samuels, the

Oklahoma pleadings are admissible as a statement against interest because, pursuant

to the Samuels’ liability coverage, American Family retained Gary Samuels’ attorney

in the Oklahoma litigation. The Samuels sought to use the Oklahoma pleadings to

show the jury that American Family took inconsistent positions as to the cause of the

accident. The district court excluded the pleadings in the Oklahoma suit from the

evidence in the trial due to the risk of confusing the jury. The jury found for

American Family and the Samuels filed a motion for a new trial. The district court

denied this motion and the Samuels now appeal, arguing that the district court erred

in excluding the Oklahoma pleadings. 

Appellate Case: 05-2530 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020407
-4-

We review a district court’s exclusion of evidence for a clear abuse of

discretion. Stephens v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 220 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). A district

court has abused its discretion “[o]nly when the evidence excluded is of such a critical

nature that there is ‘no reasonable assurance that the jury would have reached the same

conclusion had the evidence been admitted.’” Id. (quoting Adams v. Fuqua Indus.,

Inc., 820 F.2d 271, 273 (8th Cir. 1987)). We need not address whether the pleadings

in the Oklahoma suit can be attributed to American Family. The district court

excluded Gary Samuels’ answer in the Oklahoma lawsuit, albeit not expressly, under

Fed. R. Evid. 403, finding that the probative value was substantially outweighed by

the danger of confusing or misleading the jury. 

We can see no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion. The district

court clearly determined the introduction of the Oklahoma lawsuit was not pertinent

to the present case and would require lengthy explanation to the jury about the nature

of the Oklahoma suit and the obligations of retained counsel. We agree with the

district court’s determination that the excluded evidence could likely result in juror

confusion or misdirection that greatly outweighs whatever limited probative value it

would provide. Moreover, in light of the evidence presented at trial, even if we

disagreed with the district court’s conclusion there is no reason to believe the jury

would have reached a different conclusion had the pleadings been admitted.

Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2530 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020407