JENSON v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, 1:22-cv-01100

This is a negligence case arising in the Southern District of Indiana, where plaintiff Shelby Jenson sues Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, following injuries sustained at a Lowe's store.
The present opinion addresses three sets of pretrial evidentiary motions: Defendant's Daubert motion to exclude or limit expert testimony, Defendant's motions in limine, and Plaintiff's motions in limine.
Defendant contested the admissibility of anticipated expert testimony by plaintiff's experts Shirley Daugherty (life care cost projection) and Sara Ford (vocational economist), primarily challenging methodological reliability and sufficiency of evidentiary support.
Both parties also filed numerous motions in limine, seeking to limit or allow various categories of evidence, including settlement discussions, references to financial condition, other incidents, prior injuries, and late or nondisclosed evidence.
The court systematically reviewed each motion, applying evidentiary standards (often under Fed. R. Evid. 403, 408, and Daubert), sometimes granting, sometimes denying, and occasionally splitting, reserving final admissibility for trial rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Daugherty's and Ford's Expert Testimony	Experts' methodologies are valid and reliably based on records and recognized data; relevant to damages	Methodologies are unreliable, lacking direct support or too speculative	Testimony of both experts admissible in full
Inclusion of Certain Projected Medical Costs (e.g., kyphoplasty, prescription meds, orthotics)	Items based on provider recommendation or experience; appropriate for cost projection	Lack sufficient medical foundation; overly speculative	Admitted—goes to weight, not admissibility
References to Punitive Damages Prior to Prima Facie Showing	Plaintiff should be allowed to mention punitive claims in voir dire/opening; agrees not to argue amount/wealth until appropriate	Should be excluded until after prima facie showing	May reference but may not present evidence of amount or wealth until prima facie case made
Evidence of Plaintiff's or Defendant's Financial Condition	Relevant to show impact/loss (plaintiff) or for punitive (defendant) only when applicable	Irrelevant and prejudicial until punitive threshold met	Denied for plaintiff, limited for defendant—admissible for punitive purposes only
Evidence of Internal Policies, Other Incidents at Lowe's	Relevant to punitive damages, showing knowledge or willfulness	Irrelevant after liability admission; prejudicial	Admissible if relevant to punitive damages or knowledge—subject to foundation and objection

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court established standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Applied Daubert standard to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (Explains judge's gatekeeping role regarding expert methodology, not factual findings)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Internal policies do not establish standard of care under Indiana law)
Adams Laboratories, Inc. v. Jacobs Engineering Co., Inc., 761 F.2d 1218 (Prohibits improper references to parties' comparative size and financial wealth)