On March 21, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Fincher, Lacie,
Marchman, Amber,
and
West, Richard,
for Tort - Auto Tort*
in the District Court of Gwinnett County.
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
LACIE FINCHER
AMBER MARCHMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO.: 19-C-02013-S7
RICHARD WEST,
Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ GENERAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ General Motions in Limine. More than 30 days
have passed, and no opposition was filed.
A motion in limine to exclude evidence “should be granted only if there is no
circumstance under which the evidence is likely to be admissible at trial.” Williams
uv. Harvey, 311 Ga. 489, 451 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). Thus, “the
grant of a motion in limine excluding evidence is a judicial power which must be
exercised with great care.” Id. Likewise, motions in limine should not be overly broad
and instead should be tailored to a legitimate objection. Witty v. McNeal Agency, 239
Ga. App. 554, 557 (1999). Keeping these standards in mind, and after reviewing the
motion and all applicable statutory and case law, the Court rule as follows:
Plaintiffs seek to exclude any mention that Plaintiffs’ medical bills were paid
by any health insurer or other third party and to preclude discussion that “lost
wages (if applicable) were paid.” Generally, “[t]he collateral source rule is applicablein tort cases because collateral source evidence cannot be admitted to diminish the
defendant’s liability for the actual harm that was caused by his tort.” Amalgamated
Transit Union Local 1324 v. Roberts, 263 Ga. 405 (1993). “In an ordinary negligence
case, not only is a liability insurance policy of a litigant not admissible in evidence,
but disclosure to the jury of the mere existence of such contract is ground for a
mistrial.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dolan, 342 Ga. App. 179, 187 (2017) overruled on
other grounds by Williams v. Harvey, 311 Ga. 489 (2021). Plaintiffs’ motion is
general and does not identify any insurance or third-party payments that have been
made and does not identify if any lost wages were paid. Nonetheless, the Court
GRANTS the motion in limine to exclude reference to insurance or other third-party
payments. Defendant may seek reconsideration of this ruling if the evidence at trial
warrants.
All other matters referenced in Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine are DENIED.
Specific evidentiary issues will be addressed as they need arises during trial.
SO ORDERED this 8rd day of March, 2023.
be, State Court of Gwinnett County
Document Filed Date
March 03, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 21, 2019
Category
Tort - Auto Tort*
Status
04/07/2023 Dismissed
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA LACIE FINCHER AMBER MARCHMAN, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 19-C-02013-S7 RICHARD WEST, Defendant. ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ GENERAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ General Motions in Limine. More than 30 days have passed, and no opposition was filed. A motion in limine to exclude evidence “should be granted only if there is no circumstance under which the evidence is likely to be admissible at trial.” Williams uv. Harvey, 311 Ga. 489, 451 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). Thus, “the grant of a motion in limine excluding evidence is a judicial power which must be exercised with great care.” Id. Likewise, motions in limine should not be overly broad and instead should be tailored to a legitimate objection. Witty v. McNeal Agency, 239 Ga. App. 554, 557 (1999). Keeping these standards in mind, and after reviewing the motion and all applicable statutory and case law, the Court rule as follows: Plaintiffs seek to exclude any mention that Plaintiffs’ medical bills were paid by any health insurer or other third party and to preclude discussion that “lost wages (if applicable) were paid.” Generally, “[t]he collateral source rule is applicablein tort cases because collateral source evidence cannot be admitted to diminish the defendant’s liability for the actual harm that was caused by his tort.” Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1324 v. Roberts, 263 Ga. 405 (1993). “In an ordinary negligence case, not only is a liability insurance policy of a litigant not admissible in evidence, but disclosure to the jury of the mere existence of such contract is ground for a mistrial.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Dolan, 342 Ga. App. 179, 187 (2017) overruled on other grounds by Williams v. Harvey, 311 Ga. 489 (2021). Plaintiffs’ motion is general and does not identify any insurance or third-party payments that have been made and does not identify if any lost wages were paid. Nonetheless, the Court GRANTS the motion in limine to exclude reference to insurance or other third-party payments. Defendant may seek reconsideration of this ruling if the evidence at trial warrants. All other matters referenced in Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine are DENIED. Specific evidentiary issues will be addressed as they need arises during trial. SO ORDERED this 8rd day of March, 2023. be, State Court of Gwinnett County