1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

 Civil Case No. 15-11566 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

DAVID P. KAISCH and 

JULIE KAISCH, 

 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs; 

And 

DAVID M. KAISCH, 

 Intervening Plaintiff, 

v. 

IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’/COUNTERPLAINTIFFS’ (1) MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 47) AND (2) MOTION IN

LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRE-AUGUST 23, 2012 

STATEMENTS (ECF NO. 49)
2 

 This action involves a dispute over automobile insurance policy coverage. 

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant IDS Property Casualty Insurance 

Company (“Plaintiff” or “IDS”) filed this action seeking declaratory relief against 

Defendants David P. Kaisch and Julie Kaisch (collectively “Defendants”). On 

September 14, 2015, Defendants’ son, Intervenor David M. Kaisch (“Intervenor”) 

filed a complaint against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant IDS for their refusal to pay 

for collision damage arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on 

February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 16.) 

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motions in Limine. (ECF Nos. 

47 & 49.) Defendants request that this Court limit the introduction of evidence at 

trial to the two statements identified in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Complaint. (ECF 

No. 47 at Pg ID 1097.) Finding the facts and legal arguments sufficiently 

presented in the parties’ briefs, the Court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). For the reasons that follow, the 

Court denies Defendants’ motions. 

Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Complaint state the following: 

That on July 24, 2012, Defendant, David P. Kaisch, 

contacted IDS to advise that he would be moving to 

Florida and that he would be taking his 2007 Dodge with 

him. He further notified IDS that his wife, Julie Kaisch, 

would be joining him in Florida within 6 months. 

 . . . . 

That on July 24, 2012, Defendant, David P. Kaisch, 

contacted IDS to advise that he would be moving to 
3 

Florida and that he would be taking his 2007 Dodge with 

him. He further notified IDS that his wife, Julie Kaisch, 

would be joining him in Florida within 6 months. 

(ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 2.) 

Defendants’ position is that other than the two statements identified above, 

no other statements should be introduced at trial. Specifically, Defendants provide 

that the statements made during the Examination Under Oath and on May 10, 2013 

and June 30, 2014 should be precluded because they were not identified in the 

Complaint. (ECF No. 47 at Pg ID 1105-06.) Further, Defendants argue that any 

statements made before August 23, 2012 be precluded. (ECF No. 49.) 

As to the statements made prior to August 23, 2012, Plaintiff maintains that 

Defendants made statements as early as July 24, 2012 relating to their move to 

Florida from Michigan. (ECF No. 52 at Pg ID 1342.) The May 10, 2013 

statement refers to Defendant David P. Kaisch contacting Plaintiff to submit a 

claim for one of his cars under his insurance policy, where he stated that his 

vehicle was damaged while vacationing in Florida. (ECF No. 40 at Pg ID 1037.) 

The June 30, 2014 statement refers to a call Defendant David P. Kaisch 

made to Plaintiff to discuss changes to his homeowner’s policy. (Id.) During that 

call, Mr. Kaisch allegedly “admitted to running a business, Seniors On The Go, 

right out of his house” and that “he was residing at the policy address in 

Michigan.” (Id.) 
4 

On November 5, 2014, Defendant David P. Kaisch was involved in a car 

accident in Sarasota, Florida with the vehicle he added to the policy in 2013. (Id.) 

Following this accident, Plaintiff began an investigation of Mr. Kaisch’s claim, 

which included an Examination Under Oath. (Id. at Pg ID 1038.) During the 

examination, Mr. Kaisch made a series of statements regarding his time in Florida, 

including operation of the Florida businesses and his residency. (Id.) 

District courts have broad discretion over matters involving the admissibility 

of evidence at trial. United States v. Seago, 930 F.2d 482, 494 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[e]vidence is relevant . . . if it has any 

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence; and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Further, 

relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” 

Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Despite Defendants’ contentions, Plaintiff met its pleading requirement for 

fraud. The fact that Plaintiff may introduce additional statements does not change 

the Court’s position. Further, Defendants’ objections primarily are based on 

notice. However, Defendants were on notice of the statements and allowed to 
5 

respond, as well as defend against Plaintiff’s statements in Defendants’ response to 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which was over two years ago. 

Furthermore, the statements are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, including the 

sequence of events, and the jury’s determination as to whether Defendants 

intended to defraud Plaintiff. As stated in the Court’s March 7, 2017 Opinion and 

Order, “[t]he question of whether Defendants intended to misrepresent where they 

lived to Defendants is a question for the jury.” (ECF No. 40 at Pg ID 1043.) The 

statements all relate to the same policy and the communications Defendants made 

to Plaintiff while Plaintiff continued to provide Defendants with insurance 

coverage. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 47 & 49) 

are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 16, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 16, 2018, by electronic and/or 
6 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ R. Loury 

 Case Manager