Opinion
2:21-CV-00172-CAS (PDx)
01-22-2024
KATHERINE L. MALKIN v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - MINUTE ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION
Presently before the Court is defendant's objection to the introduction of defendant's appraisal reports pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
The facts and history of this case are well known to the parties. During trial, which commenced on January 2, 2024, plaintiff sought to introduce defendant's appraisal reports into evidence. Defendant objected, arguing that the Court had already deemed the appraisal reports inadmissible in its prior order. See dkt. 232.
In defendant's trial brief, defendant argues that “[t]he appraisal reports have no probative value to establish the existence or lack of settlement prior to the Thomas Fire” because “[defendant's] appraisers are not engineers and are not trained to conduct structural evaluations.” Dkt. 217 at 12. It alleges that “the entire ‘inspection' of the foundation consists of noting the type of foundation and checking a box for the presence of retrofitting (if visible); there is no investigation of potential foundation settlement or any other structural concerns.” Id. at 13. Moreover, it contends that such reports would be prejudicial and would also “result in a time-consuming mini-trial” regarding the allegedly limited purpose and frequency of insurance appraisals, how such appraisals differ from structural engineering evaluations, the training of defendant's appraisers, and the results of the six different appraisals over the last two decades. Id.
Plaintiff has previously argued that defendant's reports are “relevant to causation and [defendant's] pre-existing damage defense.” Dkt. 227 at 132 (capitalization omitted). She contends that defendant “touts its risk inspectors as ‘highly trained in all aspects of residential construction,' including ‘foundations and framing.'” Id. She claims that the fact that the reports gave the home “the highest physical condition ratings” is directly relevant to defendant's argument that the house settled prior to the Thomas Fire. Id. at 14. Finally, she asserts that defendant's “attempt to downplay the depth of [its] inspections goes to the weight of the reports, not their admissibility.” IT at 14 (emphasis in original).
Pursuant to Rule 403, the Court should exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is “substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “[U]nfairly prejudicial evidence is that having ‘an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' ” United Slates v. Gonzalez-Flores. 418 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Old Chief v. United States. 519 U.S. 172, 180(1997)).
The Court finds that the appraisal reports should be excluded pursuant to Rule 403. As a threshold matter, these reports have limited probative value. It appears that, when the underlying inspections were conducted, defendant's appraisers did not conduct an exhaustive inspection of the home and did not thoroughly investigate the portions of the home at issue in this case e.g., the foundation. In any event, determining the probative value of each appraisal report would unduly waste time and require a series of mini-trials with testimony from each of defendant's appraisers to determine what, if any, training and expertise they had in matters relating to structural engineering as well as what procedures were utilized to evaluate the structural integrity of the premises. Any limited probative value of the reports is further outweighed by their potential to confuse or mislead the jury as to the condition of the home prior to the Thomas Fire.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court excludes the appraisal reports pursuant to Rule 403.
IT IS SO ORDERED.