Judge: Michael Small, Case: 20STCV48692, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 20STCV48692    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 57

\
Defendant's motion in limine number 17 is granted to the extent that it seeks to preclude Plaintiffs' expert David Easton from offering an opinion that Defendants' handling of Plaintiffs' claim was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent.  Easton may testify about  Defendants' handling of the claim and offer opinions about it.   But he is precluded from opining that the handling was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent.   Expert testimony along those lines is not necessary or appropriate and would invade the province of the jury.  By contrast, Defendant's motion in limine number 17 is denied to the extent that it seeks to preclude Easton from offering an opinion that Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's claim was done in bad faith.  Whether an insurer's conduct manifests bad faith is an appropriate subject of expert testimony and is not barred by Evidence Code Section 805.

Plaintiffs' motion in limine number 7 seeks to preclude Defendant from using for impeachment purposes civil fraud judgments entered against certain of Plaintiffs' witnesses and that are contained in documents for which Defendants asked the Court to take judicial notice.  The Court is granting the motion.  Defendant failed in its opposition to the motion to address and apply the standards for using a civil fraud judgment to impeach the credibility of a witness.