Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Timmermann

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 17, 2009

GRINNELL MUTUAL REINSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PAUL TIMMERMANN, VERONICA TIMMERMANN LISA LYNN TIMMERMANN, KURT JAMES TIMMERMANN, AND JORDAN MICHAEL TIMMERMANN, A MINOR, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 59), seeking to bar defendants Kurt James Timmermann and Lisa Lynn Timmermann from producing testimony mentioning or in any other way referring to or relating to the matter of whether Kurt James Timmermann is an additional named insured on the insurance policy at issue in this case. Plaintiff believes that neither Kurt nor Lisa Timmermann have any personal knowledge as to the negotiations for the issuance of the insurance policy at issue.

In response (Doc. 63), defendants Kurt, Lisa and Jordan Timmermann state that although they have no particular personal knowledge of the negotiations process that presumably occurred between Plaintiff's agent and defendant Paul Timmermann (the policyholder). However, they state that Kurt Timmermann was aware of the meeting between Paul and Plaintiff's insurance agent regarding the issuance of the policy. Further, they state Kurt and Lisa Timmermann were aware of Paul Timmermann's desire for the coverage amounts to remain the same as stated in the preceding policy. Lastly, they state that Kurt Timmermann was "fully knowledgeable... of the operations and control and decision-making on the farm operations as well as who was benefitting and responsible for the income and expenses for all operations."

In its Reply (Doc. 64), Plaintiff construes the Response (Doc. 63) as revealing that neither Kurt, Lisa nor Jordan Timmermann have personal knowledge concerning the negotiations of the insurance policy at issue (whether Kurt Timmermann was listed as a named insured) and therefore, their testimony should be barred.

In reviewing the Parties' respective briefs,*fn1 the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine is too broad. An order in limine barring defendants Kurt, Lisa and Jordan Timmermann from "producing testimony mentioning or in any way referring to or relating to the following matters: whether Kurt Timmermann was a proper additional named insured," would also serve to keep Defendants from producing such evidence from any witness. The Parties are, in fact, allowed to produce evidence of which the witness has no personal knowledge as long as such evidence meets the test of admissibility. Thus, Plaintiffs have the opportunity to object to such testimony during trial, at which time, the Court will then determine whether it shall be admitted into evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 59) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.