Smith v. Summers
334 F. Supp. 3d 339
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Motor-vehicle collision on Sept. 18, 2016 in D.C.; tortfeasor John A. Summers (D.C. resident) admitted liability and his insurer tendered $25,000 policy limits; Summers and his wife released.
- Plaintiff Monique Yvette Smith (Maryland resident) sued Summers (dismissed after settlement) and her own insurer CSAA under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy for breach of contract seeking up to $250,000.
- With Summers dismissed, the only remaining defendant is CSAA; the sole jury issues are causation and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries/damages.
- CSAA moved in limine to exclude (1) any evidence of insurance coverage limits and (2) any reference to the contractual relationship (i.e., that CSAA is Plaintiff’s UIM insurer).
- Plaintiff conceded she will not introduce coverage limits but opposed barring mention that CSAA is her UIM insurer; court held limits are inadmissible but identity/contractual relationship is admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of insurance coverage limits | Smith: limits irrelevant to liability/damages; will not introduce them | CSAA: limits could prejudice jury; seeks exclusion | Granted: coverage limits (both parties') excluded as unduly prejudicial and irrelevant |
| Admissibility of fact that defendant is Plaintiff's UIM insurer / existence of the UIM contract | Smith: identity and contract are foundational to her breach-of-contract UIM claim and must be disclosed | CSAA: revealing contractual relationship will bias jury against insurer; seeks to prevent mention | Denied: identity/contract admissible; evidence relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; jury should know parties' relationship |
| Applicability of Rule 411 (insurance evidence) | Smith: Rule 411 does not bar identity when recovery is contractual against insurer | CSAA: Rule 411 supports exclusion to avoid insurance bias | Held: Rule 411 inapplicable because claim is first-party contract against insurer; identity is relevant under Rules 402/403 |
| Choice of law (D.C. v. Maryland) | Smith: Maryland law applies to UIM issues (stipulated earlier) | CSAA: urged D.C. law or relied on lack of D.C. precedent | Court: no substantive conflict; D.C. instructs to look to Maryland when D.C. law is silent; Maryland authorities persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (discussing Erie and procedural/substantive distinction)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182 (Md. 1989) (when insurer is a party, coverage limits generally not disclosed to jury)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ramos, 782 A.2d 280 (D.C. 2001) (approving Miller; coverage limits excluded)
- King v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 157 Md. App. 287 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (trial court abused discretion by keeping UIM carrier’s identity hidden; jury should know insurer’s identity)
- Davis v. Martinez, 211 Md. App. 591 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (reaffirming King: jury must be informed of identity of UIM carrier if carrier is a party)