Opinion ID: 889792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue Three: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Schindlers' motion in limine to preclude USAA from introducing evidence of Greg's fraud?

Text: ¶ 31 Schindlers moved in limine that USAA be prevented from defending itself pursuant to § 33-15-403, MCA, which precludes an insured's recovery if he or she committed fraud in the application process, because (1) the District Court had concluded the screen shots did not constitute an application within § 33-1-501, MCA, and (2) USAA could not produce an application due to the District Court's exclusion of the screen shots. The District Court denied the motion. ¶ 32 On appeal, Schindlers argue that the District Court erred in interpreting § 33-1-501, MCA, and, therefore, this Court should overturn the District Court's ruling. We decline to do so. Entirely depriving USAA of its § 33-15-403, MCA, fraud defense is not the appropriate remedy because Greg's statements relating to the description and character of the House provided the basis for the type of policy USAA issued. The District Court acted within its discretion in permitting USAA to defend itself via § 33-15-403, MCA, by allowing Williams to testify about Greg's alleged fraudulent statements. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schindlers' motion in limine.