Opinion ID: 1668615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plantation's Motion in Limine

Text: The decision to admit or to exclude evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of discretion. City of Birmingham v. Moore, 631 So.2d 972, 974 (Ala.1994). Evidence is relevant when it tends to shed some light on an issue in the case.... Decisions on the relevancy of testimony are within the trial court's sound discretion, and will not be reversed unless they are plainly erroneous. Eason v. Comfort, 561 So.2d 1068, 1071-72 (Ala.1990).
The Continental insurance policy defined an occurrence as an accident, ... which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. Continental argues that the trial court erred in granting Plantation's motion in limine and in excluding certain evidence related to Continental's defense that Plantation expected or intended the 1972 leak. Thus, Continental argues, if it could have presented evidence showing that the 1972 leak was expected or intended, that leak would not have been an insured event. Continental argues that it should have been allowed to present the 1971 study, the supplement to the 1971 study, and the testimony of its expert witness, C. David Millican. Continental argues that Plantation completed the 1971 study before the 1972 leak and that the purpose of the 1971 study was to assess the condition of the main pipeline. The 1971 study, according to Continental, provided year-by-year projections of the leaks Plantation expected from 1971 through 1980. Continental further asserts that the 1971 study showed problems of corrosion in the main pipeline. Although the trial court excluded the 1971 study and its supplement, Continental cross-examined the president of Plantation regarding the 1971 study. The testimony of Plantation's president reflects that the 1971 study was a preliminary report and that Plantation's board of directors never reviewed it. Instead, according to Plantation's president, its board of directors reviewed subsequent studies. Furthermore, the projection of leaks in the 1971 study did not identify when or where any projected leaks might occur and what damage might be caused by these leaks. If Millican had been allowed to testify, his expert testimony would have been related to the 1971 study and the corrosion of the main pipeline. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 1971 study, the supplement to the 1971 study, and Millican's testimony. Evidence that Plantation had general knowledge of the risk of a leak does not establish that Plantation subjectively expected or intended pipeline leaks. [5] Southern Guar. Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Saxon, 190 Ga.App. 652, 653, 379 S.E.2d 577, 578 (1989). [6] Plantation's pipeline runs from Louisiana through North Carolina. The 1971 study and its supplement fail to show that Plantation specifically intended or expected the 1972 leak at the Elliott's Creek site. Instead, the 1971 study and its supplement show only that Plantation was generally aware of the risk of a leak occurring anywhere along its entire pipeline. The trial court did not exceed its discretion by weighing the relevance of the 1971 study and its supplement against any unfair prejudice to Plantation and deciding to exclude them. Rule 403, Ala. R. Evid. Nor did the trial court exceed its discretion in excluding Millican's expert testimony; the trial court determined that his testimony would have been based largely on the 1971 study and other excluded evidence.
Continental argues that the owners of the property on which the contaminated site is located, Ward Pearson and Greg Pearson, were improperly excluded from testifying at trial. Continental argues that the Pearsons should have been allowed to testify regarding their discovery of the contamination and how that contamination manifested itself. Plantation provided ample evidence regarding the contamination and the manifestation of the contamination on the Pearsons' property. Continental does not explain why additional testimony from the Pearsons would have been necessary or helpful. Thus, the trial court did not exceed its discretion in excluding the Pearsons' testimony.