Opinion
3:20CV220-M-RP
11-23-2021
VIVIAN WARREN PLAINTIFF v. DANIEL B. FORE, A/K/A DANIEL B. FORE, MD DEFENDANT
ORDER
MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine [87] to preclude evidence of liability insurance. Defendant requests that the Court preclude questioning or reference to whether Dr. Fore or any of the witnesses called by Dr. Fore, including expert witnesses, are insured by any liability insurance company. Plaintiff responds by arguing that under Fed.R.Evid. 411, evidence of liability insurance may be admissible for purposes such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control. Fed.R.Evid. 411.
When ruling on motions in limine, the Court notes that “[e]vidence should not be excluded … unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Harkness v. Bauhas U.S.A., Inc., 2015 WL 631512, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2015) (quoting Fair v. Allen, 2011 WL 830291, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 3, 2011)). Evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible, and thus, Defendant's motion in limine [87] is GRANTED subject to proof that it would be otherwise admissible, with such facts not being presently known to the Court.
ACCORDINGLY, it is therefore ordered that Defendant's Motion in Limine [87] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED