Cheri W. Heflin v. Stephen Merrill
154 So. 3d 857
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Cheri Heflin sued Merrill’s estate and Nationwide Insurance as their underinsured-motorist (UM) carrier after a rear-end collision.
- Nationwide admitted liability and offered to pay any final judgment in excess of Merrill’s liability limits; it moved to exclude reference to its role as a defendant.
- The trial court granted Nationwide’s motion to exclude its identity and to exclude UM coverage evidence; two defense objections at trial were sustained (Merrill’s apology and Mike’s speed opinion).
- Cheri obtained a $32,500 verdict, under Merrill’s policy limits, and post-trial motions for new trial/additur were denied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the insurer’s identity and related evidentiary rulings.
- The central issue is whether informing the jury of Nationwide’s role as a party is admissible and whether the trial court properly exercised evidence-control powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Nationwide’s identity | Heflin argues Nationwide’s identity should be disclosed to the jury. | Nationwide contends the insurer’s identity is irrelevant and prejudicial and should be excluded. | Trial court properly excluded; identity was irrelevant and prejudicial under Rule 403. |
| Admission of Merrill’s post-accident statement to Mike | Statement is a party-admission and should be admissible. | Statement should be excluded as prejudicial or inflammatory. | Exclusion affirmed; no abuse of discretion under Rule 403. |
| Admission of Mike’s lay speed opinion | Mike’s lay opinion on speed was admissible based on perception. | Speed opinion should be limited or excluded as improper lay opinion. | Exclusion affirmed; testimony properly limited under Rule 701. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bardis v. First Trenton Ins. Co., 971 A.2d 1069 (N.J. 2009) (limits on insurance evidence; relevance and probative value balancing)
- Lamz v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 803 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2001) (insurer’s identity in UM trials ordinarily irrelevant; will not affect damages)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Lobello, 212 Va. 534, 186 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 1972) (prejudicial error to inject insurance into case; identity disclosure can inflate verdict)
- Reed v. Wimmer, 195 W.Va. 199, 465 S.E.2d 199 (W.Va. 1995) (insurance-evidence considerations; public policy in jury openness)