*1
Basic Ins
v MICHIGAN BASIC PROPERTY
SMITH
ASSOCIATION
INSURANCE
8).
(Calendar
4,
Argued
No.
90639.
March
Nos.
Docket
September
1992.
Decided
Wayne
brought
Myrtle
in the
Circuit
Smith
an action
Elmer and
Property
Association
against
Insurance
Court
policy after their
under a fire insurance
benefits
to recover
trial,
destroyed.
completely
Before
contents were
home and its
Connor, J.,
plain-
if the
determined that
Michael J.
the court
full
recover the
verdict
could
a favorable
tiffs obtained
limits,
replacement
to exceed
of their
not
cost
replace
having
repair
it. The insurer
or
without first
alleged
plaintiffs’
evidence of the
to introduce
directed not
welfare,
public
dependence
or their under-
poverty,
their
for
other
employment
to burn the home or
to show motive
trial,
judgment on a
purpose.
the court entered
After
plaintiffs
the fire was
found
verdict for the
set,
concern-
deliberately
fact or circumstance
that no material
fire,
origin
the insured
ing
the value of
the cause or
damage
property,
sustained was
extent of loss and
or the
concealed,
had not
misrepresented
the insurer
or
and
disregard
wilfully
the claim with a callous
denied
P.J.,
rights.
Appeals,
Mackenzie,
plaintiffs’
The Court of
(T. Kavanagh,
J.,
part),
dissenting in
in an
Doctoroff,
J.
G.
curiam,
opinion per
re-
unpublished
the case and
vacated
trial,
inquiry concerning
finding
new
that an
manded it for a
plaintiffs’
been allowed and
financial condition should have
replacement
recovered
the home could be
cost of
112808).
(Docket
repair
having
it
No.
without
appeal.
parties
Both
joined by
opinion Justice
Chief
Levin,
Justice
In an
Mallett,
Brickley, Riley,
Cavanagh,
and Justices
Supreme
held:
be-
the difference
liable to
Before an insurer becomes
References
2d,
1504-1507.
Am Jur
Insurance §§
provision permitting
insurance
and effect
Construction
property.
recovery
replacement
1 ALR5th 817.
cost of
441 Mich
replacement
under a
cost
the actual cash value
tween
policy,
provision
fire
an insured
of a
insurance
cost
rebuild,
actually repair,
the home at
same
must
or another site.
for the difference between
1. An insurer is not liable
value of a home and
actual cash
rebuilt,
replaced
actually repaired,
limit unless the home is
*2
case,
policy provided
site. In this
at the same or another
pay
value
no more than the actual cash
that the insurer was to
repair
replacement
damage
was com-
or
unless
pleted.
of arson or fraud
asserts defenses
Where an insurer
faith,
payment
automatically
good
entitled to
insured is not
following jury’s rejection
replacement
of the defenses.
a
cost
expected
plaintiffs
re-
could not be
2. While the
litigation
pending,
build,
once
their home while
or
they
payment
were entitled to
it has
determined that
been
regard
they repaired,
to whether
actual cash value without
did,
rebuilt,
replaced,
replacement cost if
and to
longer
way
in the
of lender-
no
stands
insurer’s defenses
financing.
assisted
ruling barring
of evi-
3.
court’s
the introduction
The trial
plaintiffs’
condition would not be an
dence of the
financial
disturbing
appropriate
for
the verdict.
basis
Reversed and remanded.
Griffin, concurring
part
Boyle,
joined by Justice
Justice
although
evidentiary
dissenting
part,
stated
harmless,
erroneously concluded that
error was
the trial court
Henderson,
People
Dykema, S. Donald Gossett Lewis) Patrick, & Johnson McCree Kathleen King, (by Jr., A. Johnson, and Judith H. Paul PC. Friday), for the defendant.
Amicus Curiae: Lawyers Michigan Trial for the E. Shaw
Richard Association. J. Two
Levin, presented: are questions (1) under a can recover an insured Whether provision fire insurance of a rebuilding, repairing, actually without replacing site. or another at same although insurer denied that, conclude We *3 coverage grounds caused the fire was that on the they in by fraud had committed insureds and the jury reporting the fire was found the loss and fraud, no there was the insureds and not caused actually repair, nevertheless insureds must site same or another rebuild, at pay the differ- liable the insurer becomes before replacement cash value between actual ence cost.
(2) ruling judge in erred the circuit Whether may evidence of not introduce that the insurer motive to show insureds of the condition financial purpose. that al- conclude We other or for though of an condition financial of the evidence particular may, cases, admissible in insured prove judge purposes, did for other motive or Michigan not, ruling in Basic could in not err 441 Mich case, introduce evidence of the finan- the instant cial condition of Smiths.
i Myrtle their home in Elmer and Smith insured Michigan, Michigan Prop- Trenton, with the erty against fire loss. The Insurance Association coverage policy provided policy $56,000.1 the home limit of com- The Smiths’ home and its contents were pletely destroyed by fire. Basic claimed deliberately fire, that that the Smiths had set the reporting had committed fraud in appeared loss. When it repaired, that the home would not be City of Trenton demolished what was left of the structure. The Smiths commenced this action circuit court. trial,
Before the Smiths moved for a determina- whether, verdict, tion they the event of a favorable
would be allowed to recover the exceeding policy $56,000 cost of the home not stipulated $7,500 limit instead of the actual cash value.2 Basic contended that it was obliged pay only the actual cash of the value home in the event the Smiths obtained a favorable regard issues, verdict with because the Smiths had not to the arson and fraud
completed repair 1Among coverages personal property the other were unscheduled $28,000, living expense with a limit of and additional with a $11,200. policy limit of parties agreed The the actual cash value disrepair agreed depressed $7,500. neighborhood, They and in a also $56,000, "replacement cost value” of the home is limit, $6,652.15, living expenses that the Smiths’ additional are $2,500 removal, the Smiths would be entitled to for debris "only damages Jury going thus that the issue of that the to have to regarding decide the claim is the value of the contents loss.” personal determined that the actual cash value of the *4 property damaged $26,061.16. destroyed or in the fire was verdict, $90,607.92 Following jury’s judgment plus the a for interest was entered in favor of the Smiths. Smith Opinion of the Court policy3 the the as both of home require. the statute4 following by Michigan the policy Basic contained issued
clause: of the pay cash value more than the actual will no We (a) complete; or repair replacement is
damage (b) or unless: (i) damage less than repair the is both: or the cost to building; policy on the insurance in this the amount of 5% and ment, I-Conditions, 3, (ii) Settle- Loss $1000. b(4).] ¶ less than [Section Subdivision policy provided section in the "Loss Settlement” is also It eighty percent the or full more amount of insurance is if the replace, repair cost, pay or cost to replacement without deduction limit of replacement construction the insurer will the (a) exceeding depreciation, the lesser of "the for (b) building; liability applies the the this to under building damaged for part the like cost of (c) necessary premises; or the and use on the same damaged building.” repair actually spent the to or amount percent, eighty the is less than the amount of insurance Where propor- greater value or that of the actual cash will insurer tion deprecia- repair replace, without deduction of the cost to or damaged tion, part building the total amount of which Id., eighty percent cost. Subdi- bears to insurance vision (2). b(l), loss, the time of the was issued and at When provided: Code Insurance adequate may, in consideration of Riders and endorsements premium deposit, fire premium be standard or added agrees insuring property, whereby policy, the insurer insurance indemnify the for the difference to reimburse and insured the time the insured at the actual value of between occurs, expended damages actually any to kind or and the amount loss size, replace with materials of like or new rebuild liability quality, amount of but not to exceed the endorsements, by property as has riders or such covered perils damaged destroyed insured fire or other been liability by against, except that the insurer there shall no pay the of said riders endorsements under amount terms specified riders or endorsements unless replaced actually repaired, at property damaged rebuilt 500.2826; Em- MSA 24.12826. same or another site. [MCL phasis added.] provide: Code to PA 305 revised 2826 of Insurance § prop- policy, insuring may issue fire An insurer insurance indemnify agrees erty, by which the insurer reimburse *5 181 Mich Opinion of the Court Observing allegations that the arson and fraud extremely would have made it difficult for the financing Smiths to obtain to rebuild the judge ruled that, and later entered an order the event they verdict, the Smiths obtained a favorable pursuant
were,
to Pollock v
Ex
Fire Ins
change,
App
415;
167 Mich
to show motive or for other purpose . . . .” jury special found,
The in a form, verdict that deliberately the fire set, was not the Smiths deliberately setting had not set or caused the fire, and that the Smiths did not know of and setting consent to the of the fire for the fraudulent purpose attempting to recover under the by Michigan jury issued Basic. The also found that misrepresented the Smiths had not or concealed any concerning material fact or circumstance the insured for the difference between the actual value of the damages occurs, insured at the time loss or actually expended rebuild, the amount with new exceed policy or size, kind, quality, materials of like but not to liability policy. the amount of covered the fire A fire pursuant may provide issued to this section there liability by shall be no specified the insurer to the amount property damaged in the rebuilt, actually repaired, unless the replaced 500.2826; at the same or another site. [MCL
MSA 24.12826.] origin fire, of the insured the value cause property, damage sus- of loss the extent Ba- The further found tained. "wilfully Plaintiffs’ claim denied the sic had not disregard rights Plaintiffs’ callous with a policy.” under the Appeals5 and remanded for Court of vacated stating judge trial, have should a new concerning inquiry financial the Smiths’ allowed condition'but ruling judge’s that the of the affirmed Smiths could recover *6 having repaired replaced actually without home it.6 disagree stated, the Court of earlier we As Appeals questions. on both this to the circuit court with We remand case judgment $90,607.92 for the the direction of Smiths be modified to entered require they actually repair, favor the regard payment, whether the without to home, the rebuild or require 8plus interest, $42,107.927 to an exceeding payment amount not additional of an plus $48,500® actually if Smiths when and the interest the rebuild or home.
ii expert testimony Michigan Basic introduced 5 Ins, unpublished opinion per Property 112808). (Docket curiam, September decided 1990 No. Pollock, predicated Appeals not advert to The Court did provision a the on issue on affirmance Insurance Code (MCL 500.2827[3]; 24.12827[3]) by MSA not cited acknowledge party appeal. at or on The Smiths either statutory provision trial Appeals apply judge relied on the Court of does They that the issued to them. contend to insurance authority correctly ruled on the of Pollock and other cases cited their brief. $26,061.16 apparently determined This consists of personal property damaged or be the fair actual cash value fire, living expense stipulated destroyed in the additional $2,500 $7,500, $6,652.15, for value of the home of actual cash removal, stipulated offset of $605.39. less a debris $7,500 cash of the home value The difference between $56,000, stipulated replacement cost value of limit. and the 441 Mich Opinion op the Court tending to show that the fire resulted from the ignition liquids of flammable and had been deliber- ately expert testimony set, and additional indicating there was no evidence that the fire was expert witness, accidental. Still another for the Smiths, testified that he believed that the fire was accidentally by wiring caused a short circuit in the leading refrigerator. police The state were unable to find evidence of a flammable substance testing samples taken from the home. purchased two-story, single-
The Smiths family approximately residence $6,500 years over thirteen before the fire. After purchased City of Trenton rezoned Only for commercial use. two houses remained on the Smiths’ block at the time of the Approximately twenty fire. fifteen to other struc- neighborhood tures in the had been removed be- purchase tween the of the home and the time of the fire. tending Basic introduced evidence disrepair.
show that the home was in a state of A housing inspector inspec- Trenton testified that beginning tions in 1975 revealed code violations, including plumbing problems. electrical and *7 The Smiths were informed of the need to obtain an permit electrical rected. before the violations were cor- not, The Smiths did however, obtain the required permits and the code violations had not been corrected before the fire. Additional code April, inspec- violations were observed in an tion. inspector March, 1987,
In a Trenton notified the property Smiths that he intended to enter the and inspection. inspec- conduct a more extensive The delayed request tion was for a short time at the repairs. the Smiths to allow them time to make Michigan Basic Ins Smith Opinion op the Court pipe, was in a broken water Smith fixed Elmer installing process linoleum floor. a new day the resched- on the before The fire occurred inspection, chil- Smiths and their while uled Michigan, Hesperia, visiting relatives dren were driving Trenton. time from four hours over
hi Michigan agree it is not We $7,500 between for the difference liable replace- $56,000 home and the value of the cash actually is unless the home limit ment cost replaced, repaired, that Pollock rebuilt, or not be followed. should policy provides that the in- The fire insurance value than the actual cash will no more surer repair replace- damage "actual of the unless provides complete.”9 The statute10 is ment part liability no on there shall be provision "unless under a insurer damaged actually repaired, rebuilt replaced site.” at the same or another rely Pollock, McCahill v Commer- Smiths App Co, 761; 446 NW2d Ins 179 Mich cial Union v American Motorists and Zaitchick (SD 1982), Supp NY, aff’d without Co, 554 F 1983). (CA published opinion 742 F2d Pollock, McCahill, Basic contends incorrectly decided, in all were and Zaitchick distinguishable found because events are that wilfully denied the Basic had not disregard their Smiths’ claim with a callous rights, the Court found "lack of in Pollock while n 3. See 10See n 4. *8 441 Mich Opinion of the Court good processing”11 faith of the insured’s claim and in McCahill the Court followed Pollock "under the finding of facts this case” which included a of outrageous "extreme and conduct” the insur- er.12 agree
We Basic that where the good insurer asserts in faith a defense of arson or automatically fraud, the insured is not entitled to payment replacement following jury’s cost rejection Although, of those defenses. as stated in supra, p chary Zaitchick, 217, "a bank would be money unlitigated lend on the basis of an law suit in which the defendant and its vast resources present payment,” intend to and, several defenses to agree thus, they we with the Smiths that expected repair, could not be rebuild, litigation pending, while this once it has been they payment determined that are entitled to regard they cash value without to whether replace, replacement rebuild, or and to cost interposition so, if do the insurer’s of arson longer way fraud defenses no stands in the financing repair, rebuilding, lender-assisted replacement. provides The insurance the insured may disregard replacement provision cost make claim for value, actual cash and then make eighty claim days within one hundred after loss payment for an additional on a Supreme basis.13 The Judicial Maine, Court of 11Pollock, supra, p 422. 12McCahill, supra, pp 775.
13 (5) may disregard You cost loss settlement provisions and make claim damage under this for loss or buildings on an may actual cash value basis. You then make days claim within 180 replacement ment, after liability loss for additional on a I-Conditions, cost basis. [Section Loss Settle ¶ b(5).] Subdivision *9 language, construing "[t]here is said the same argument support company’s simply the no for imposes obligation the to make a claim that the building replacement requirement must the complete’ 'substantially is at the time the claim be upon where, made,”14 vorably the conclusion fa- and that concerning litigation the the insured of to required to under a the insurer was amount replacement provision, trial the court did cost allowing year date the from the insured "a err of replace judgment re- the home and incur placement costs.”15 recog- unwillingness Michigan Basic’s
While may, practical matter, as a nize the Smiths’ claims undertaking repair, the them from have disabled rebuilding, following replacement or of their rejecting litigation, the of this the conclusion fire caused arson or claims there was fraud interest reporting loss, the Smiths’ replacement obtaining payment cost estopping protected the insurer without be can rebuilding, requiring re- or from placement policy required by the insurance as statute. liability policy for Basic’s limits (a) replacement lesser of three amounts: to the (b) replacement "like limit, cost for (em- premises” use the same construction 1983). 14 (Me, Co, A2d 428 v York Mutual Ins Blanchette with the trial court’s takes issue The Plaintiff also [insurer] given one should be the Defendant [insured] determination entry judgment, time” to year as a "reasonable from replacement rebuild the home and reimbursed or a deadline the statute establishes costs. for tion. nor Neither rebuilding replacement completion construc or contract, performance specified in the is no time for When When, implied. inas [Citation omitted.] a "reasonable time” case, undisputed, time” what is a "reasonable are this facts Watson, question Mutual Fire Ins Co law. [Maine raises a (Me, 1987).] 688, 689 532 A2d Mich (c) phasis added), actually or the amount spent necessarily repair damaged building.16 permits repair, rebuilding, The statute "at the same or another site.”17 jurisdictions Cases in other hold that the "for like premises” construction and use on the same lan- guage only applies to the second of the three loss repair settlement alternatives,18 and that actual is allowed other than at the site of the loss.19
IV sought to introduce evidence of the Smiths’ financial condition both to show mo- *10 tive to set a fire and to show that committed reporting fraud in the loss.
A
ruling
In
that
Basic "shall not intro-
any
duce
Myrtle
evidence of Plaintiff Elmer and
16
might
argued
See n 3. It
language requires
that
this
the
that the
insured to
appears
rebuild at the same location. It
zoning ordinance, however,
Trenton
precludes
doing
the Smiths from
so.
17See n 4 for text.
18See n 3 for text.
19Cases where
replacement
the insured recovered
following
rebuilding on different land
Co,
include Blanchette v York Mutual Ins
supra;
n 14
Co,
Johnson v Colonial
749;
Penn Ins
127 Misc 2d
487
(1985),
NYS2d 285
and Tiffin Ave
Indemnity
Investors v Midwestern
Co, unpublished opinion of
Appeals,
the Ohio Court of
decided
28,
(Docket
May
5-85-22).
Huggins
No.
Co,
In
v Hanover Ins
(Ala, 1982),
So 2d 147
the insured recovered
cost follow
ing purchase of a home.
Cases where the
insured recovered
rebuilding
cost on
with different materials or structures include Ruter v Northwestern
Co,
Super
Fire & Marine
467;
Ins
(1962),
NJ
fare, under marginal employment ing to motive or show judge purpose,” on this relied other holding Henderson, that it was decision Court’s permit defendant cross-examination not error concerning financial condition. his Henderson20 agreed the state- it said This Court Supreme Jersey ment of the New poverty something tie than more must be "there and the criminal into a a defendant milieu,”21 Appeals Court of of the United States statement "[w]here Circuit that of Columbia for the District only elicited demonstrates the evidence 'poor,’ inquiry is defendant improper,”22 "[tjhere prejudice adding: is a need to avoid undue prevent and to establishment in individual cases weighing justice’ more 'two-tiered standard recognize poor. heavily that evi- on the And we condition, because of a defendant’s financial dence ordinarily probative usu- has limited value and it ally goes issue, will often distract a collateral than rather aid the jury.”23 reversing explained that its decision The Court Appeals did not "allow 'routine use’ the Court prosecutor’s of financial condition.” evidence showing unemployment, proofs estab- "rather than only employed, was not but lished held a Henderson managerial position. his The evidence that electricity non-payment, *11 in viewed was shut off employment, light this of carried with of evidence suggestion 'poor.’ ’,24 no Henderson was it 20 convicted of arson and embezzlement. Henderson had been 21 (1966). Mathis, 455, 472; 221 529 State v 47 NJ A2d 22 States, 171; App 409 F2d 453 133 US DC Davis United (1969). 23Henderson, p supra, 65. 24Id., pp 65-66. 181 441 Mich Opinion op the Court This a thus drew distinction "between poverty unemployment evidence of —evidence person chronically that a is short of funds —and appeal, of the sort in evidence involved this show- ing person shortage experiencing that a is a of appears contrary funds that to be novel or to what expect typically per- one would is felt a such son.”25 juris- relies on decisions other distinguishable
dictions some which are from because, Henderson, the instant case were circumstances as in there
indicating that there had been a financial deterioration circumstances of person against the fered.26 whom the evidence was of-
25 Id., p 66.
This Court added: poverty, welfare, dependence public Evidence of unem- ployment, underemployment, ment, paying marginal employ- low probative is not admissible to show motive. The value of applies large such segment is defendants as evidence diminished because it to too a population. prejudicial though, impact, of the total There is a risk Its high. jurors will it cause to view a poor provider, a "bad man” —a worthless a
individual.
however,
may,
Other
evidence
financial condition
be ad-
particular
missible in the circumstance of a
case. [Id.]
26 Elgi Holding
(CA
America,
In
Inc v Ins Co North
511 F2d 957
2, 1975), the
held
court
that it was not error to allow the introduction
concerning
difficulties,
of
that
including
evidence
the owner’s financial
mortgage
a bank had threatened to foreclose the
on the ware
immediately
eight
payments
house
had been
before the fire because
consecutive
Further,
attempted
portray
missed.
the owner had
himself as a well-to-do and successful businessman at
trial.
Co,
330, 336;
In Girard v Vermont Mutual
Ins
Fire
103 Vt
154 A
(1931),
court
plaintiffs
being
said that "evidence that
were
pressed by
creditors was
relevant fact.”
Eagle
York,
(CA
In
McIntosh v
Fire
New
Co of
F2d
8, 1963), the court said that
evidence
the insured’s income tax
posture
returns
admissible "in
of this case.” In Carciofolo v
Co,
672;
US Fire
AD2d
there had argument During the on the condition. financial objec- lawyer motion, without Smiths’ stated undisputed my cli- the "facts are tion ents, having high income also were not not while any bills, not financial of their were behind on pressure any distress, under from were merely, money. anyone But else to creditors paid nearly poor people.” They they’re in full had mortgage on their home. change only concerned the condition impending physical and the condition Housing Inspector, all of of the Trenton visit which was explored trial. at the
B
during argument
motion,
Also
problem
lawyer
"the
said that he saw
Basic’s
Co,
21; 184 A 169
88 NH
v
States Fire Ins
In Lamb United
pension
family
of a
income consisted
court said that where
sale
obtained on
occasional
a month and an indefinite sum
$12.50
quilts, supplemented
relief
patchwork
contributions
of wreaths and
Nashua,
pecuniary
condition of
insured
City
from
marry
to show a motive for
relevant
man
desired to
were
she
burning
property.
the insured
Basic,
by Michigan
courts have
to the cases cited
In addition
concerning financial condition
of evidence
the introduction
allowed
that
specific
problems,
probative
deterioration
finan
financial
is
condition,
portrayal of
condition. See
financial
rebut
cial
872,
(1990);
Musitief,
877-878;
App
520
People
3d
559 NE2d
v
201 Ill
1042,
America,
Maddox,
App
Royal
208 Ill
3d
v
Ins Co
CL
1051-1052;
Inc
Musa,
(1991);
785
v
F2d
Ins Co of North America
Herzog, public licensed a adjuster employed by Wide, State testified that she inspect inventory personal was unable to or property damage. of the because extensive fire Herzog prepared, supplied by with information Myrtle twenty-three-page inventory Smith, a of personal property the items of claimed to have destroyed inventory been fire. The listed a personal property damage cost of the $41,841 of and an actual $26,061.27 cash of value
Michigan Basic contends that an examination of inventory reflects the Smiths claimed to acquired personal $5,000 have property ing inwell excess of years immediately preced-
within the two fire,28 and that evidence of their financial probative condition would be of the issue of fraud reporting the loss because such evidence would improbable tend show that it was acquired property had, fact, Smith’s in amount claimed._ The determined the fair cash actual value of the personal property damaged destroyed $26,061. or was inventory Our examination of the indicates that the stated re
placement personal property acquired of the two-year within $7,524 period $4,871. and the stated cash value is "Replacement cost” means reasonable estimate of the cost of replacing personal property. on the an market item of "Actual cash depreciation. value” means cost less Basic Ins Smith Boyle, J. included personal property inventories
The children. two to the five belonging older at time were seventeen oldest the prop- some of Smith testified Myrtle fire. acquired was acquired, and not new when erty sales, sales, and mov- sales, porch yard at garage barring introduc- ruling judge’s sales. The ing financial condition of the Smiths’ tion of evidence disturbing an basis appropriate not be would the verdict. court for to the circuit and remanded
Reversed requiring pay- judgment a modified entry actu- to whether the Smiths ment, regard without rebuild, repair, ally interest, require an addi-
$42,107.92 and to plus exceeding payment an amount tional actu- $48,500 interest when and if Smiths plus the home. rebuild ally *14 Brickley, Riley, Cavanagh, C.J., Levin, Mallett, JJ., J. concurred with dissenting part in in (concurring Boyle, J. part). although I to that in separately write state harmless, I error was evidentiary view my the Court of that the trial agree Appeals with People v Hender- concluded that erroneously court son, 56; 408 Mich 289 NW2d barred pur- plaintiffs’ tax returns for admission of The not to show pose. generally defendant did seek to commit arson persons likely are more poor Rather, being there other people. affluent than value origin, probative incendiary evidence logical relevance to specific evidence its relating personal and to fraud to motive arson proven may This has held arson be loss. evidence, Peterson v Oceana by circumstantial (1928). 215; NW 934 Circuit 243 Mich Judge, 441 Mich Opinion by Boyle, J. plus opportunity may access or establish Motive context, Detroit, arson in a civil Inc v Home O-So (CA 1992), Co, and, 973 F2d as the lead opinion implicitly overwhelming recognizes, weight specific authority permits introduction ante, evidence of financial civil See need cases. (rev p ed), Couch, Insurance, n 15 and 19 2d pp § 79:573, 542-544. prosecutor not a
This is situation which a is seeking prejudice by suggesting a defendant part that he is of the criminal milieu he because is poor. People supra, Henderson, The rationale of is that motive is of minimal relevance in theft greed offense because and not need is the assumed lightly motive for theft. Because one does not destroy logical business, one’s home or force of relationship greater between need and deed is here, however, the context of an arson. Even respect might and legitimately cases, even to civil it urged that financial need alone is probative of arson. opinion acknowledge What the lead does not is this not a case where the offers defense establish arson from evidence financial need incendiary Here, alone. origin. there is other evidence of proof specific offered is and relevant plaintiffs’ financial motive.1 Finally, judgment plain- since has entered for opinion’s tiffs, the lead observations are unneces- sary. extending I would refrain from dicta of quarrel judge 1 I do not with the fact discretion to has prevent motive, generalized poverty suggests innuendo from a claim that situation, MRE 403. It me it would seem to would be a rare *15 however, prejudicial specific where effect evidence would out weigh probative that, situations, potential prejudice value and in most properly by could be addressed curative instructions. Emasco See (1990). Waymire, 131; Co v court felt 242 Mont P2d Since trial compelled evidence, failing to exclude the it erred in exercise discretion. Basic Ins Boyle, J. presented in supra, a case Henderson, until properly effect said it can which prejudiced unfairly admitting the evidence plaintiff. Boyle, J. J.,
Griffin, concurred