On April 24, 2008, we reported on a reinsurance broker’s failed bid to take an interlocutory appeal from a federal district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that the broker negligently presented misinformation to the plaintiff reinsurer. Since that time, the parties filed, and the court ruled on, a number of motions in limine to exclude certain evidence at trial:
(1) The broker’s motion to preclude evidence of “pure omissions” and evidence of alleged misrepresentations not presented at a prior arbitration was denied. Among other things, the court rejected the argument that the information supplied by the broker was necessarily complete in itself. It was for the jury to decide whether the information was misleadingly incomplete.
(2) The broker’s motion to preclude the use of an expert’s supplemental report as untimely disclosing all the expert’s underlying data was also denied. The court, however, did allow the broker the opportunity to allow a supplemental deposition on the new data.
(3) The record of a prior arbitration between the plaintiff and a non-party, including the reports of two experts submitted in the arbitration, was precluded in part because it appeared to be hearsay not covered by an exception.
(4) The plaintiff’s motion to preclude the testimony of an expert who intended to ruminate on what the arbitral panel might have been thinking was excluded as purely speculative.
(5) A motion to exclude two English legal decisions as inadmissible hearsay was denied. The broker successfully argued that its expert properly referenced the foreign decisions as establishing the basis of industry practices and was therefore admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
United National Insurance Co. v. Aon Ltd., Case No. 04-539 (USDC E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2008).
This post written by Brian Perryman.