Heflin v. Merrill
154 So. 3d 887
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Jan. 21, 2005, Stephen Merrill rear‑ended a truck driven by Mike Heflin with Cheri Heflin as a passenger; Merrill later died and his estate was a defendant. Allstate insured Merrill’s vehicle; Nationwide provided the Heflins’ uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- Cheri Heflin sued Merrill (negligence), Nationwide (UM coverage/direct action), and the vehicle owner; liability was admitted and the trial addressed damages only.
- The parties stipulated that Nationwide would be responsible for any judgment exceeding Merrill/Allstate’s liability limits (Nationwide’s UM policy limit stated in stipulation).
- Nationwide moved in limine to bar any mention of its name or the existence of the UM policy; the trial court granted the motion but allowed Nationwide’s counsel to participate in trial activities (in background).
- At the damages trial, the court excluded (1) testimony by Mike Heflin opining on Merrill’s speed (no proffer preserved) and (2) post‑accident statements made by Merrill to Mike (admission by party‑opponent found, but excluded under Rule 403 as unduly prejudicial/confusing given liability was admitted and declarant unavailable).
- Jury awarded $32,500; plaintiff appealed arguing errors in the in limine ruling, exclusion of speed testimony, exclusion of Merrill’s statements, and cumulative error. The Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by granting Nationwide’s motion in limine and hiding Nationwide and the UM policy from the jury while permitting Nationwide counsel to participate | Heflin: Nationwide was a proper defendant for UM benefits; jury should know Nationwide’s identity and role — excluding it misleads jury and prejudices plaintiff | Nationwide: Stipulation makes UM coverage irrelevant; mentioning the carrier would unfairly prejudice or inflate damages; carrier may assist defense without revealing identity | Court: No error — with liability admitted and the stipulation that Nationwide would cover excess, evidence of Nationwide’s policy/name was irrelevant and prejudicial; exclusion within discretion |
| Whether excluding Mike Heflin’s testimony about Merrill’s speed was error | Heflin: Lay witness may opine on speed immediately before collision; speed relevant to damages and credibility | Estate: Mike lacks expertise; testimony would be speculation; no expert designation; objection sustained | Court: Issue waived on appeal for failure to proffer excluded testimony; exclusion reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed |
| Whether excluding Merrill’s post‑accident statements to Mike was error (hearsay/admission) | Heflin: Statements are admissions by a party‑opponent (not hearsay) and relevant to explain why collision occurred and to show speed/credibility | Estate: Hearsay; declarant deceased/unavailable for cross‑examination; would inflame jury; liability admitted so statements would confuse | Court: Statements qualify as admissions but were properly excluded under Rule 403 as more prejudicial/misleading given declarant unavailable and liability not contested; exclusion within discretion |
| Whether cumulative errors required a new trial | Heflin: Combined exclusions and rulings cumulatively prejudiced a fair outcome | Defendants: Individual rulings proper; no reversible error to cumulate | Court: No error in preceding rulings, so no cumulative error; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Royal Carpet Servs., 29 So.3d 109 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing motions in limine/abuse of discretion)
- Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341 (Miss. 1988) (factors for granting motion in limine)
- Redhead v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 828 So.2d 801 (Miss. Ct. App.) (need for proffer to preserve excluded testimony)
- White v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 905 So.2d 506 (Miss.) (standard for new trial motion/review)
- Moore v. State, 816 So.2d 1022 (Miss. Ct. App.) (lay opinion on vehicle speed admissible if contemporaneous)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Lobello, 212 Va. 534 (Va.) (insurance identity may be excluded to avoid inflating verdict — Virginia approach)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wade, 265 Va. 383 (Va.) (discussing limits on revealing UM carrier to jury)
- Krawzak v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 306 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (Florida approach: insurer named as party must be disclosed to jury)
- Medina v. Peralta, 724 So.2d 1188 (Fla.) (reversible error to hide UM carrier identity when properly joined)