Darmer v. Jenkins-Jones

Background

Steven Darmer sued his insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, for allegedly breaching the parties’ insurance contract. A fire damaged Darmer’s residence in November 2016. Darmer claimed that State Farm failed to pay all benefits due under the policy. State Farm asserted that Darmer intended to defraud it by misrepresenting rebuilding costs and the value of personal property, and that his failure to cooperate materially prejudiced State Farm’s handling of the claim.

The court addressed the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to limit or exclude evidence and arguments at trial. The parties argued the motions at a February 28, 2022 hearing, and the court ruled on some issues from the bench.

Darmer’s motion

Darmer asked the court to prevent State Farm from seeking reimbursement of funds paid to him if a jury found that he intended to defraud State Farm, because State Farm had not filed a counterclaim. State Farm acknowledged that it had not filed a counterclaim but said it did not intend to present evidence of a reimbursement right because it could amend its pleadings after trial. The court rejected Darmer’s request and DENIED his motion in limine.

State Farm’s first and second motions

State Farm sought to exclude several categories of evidence as irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading under Rule 403. The order states that the motions were GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

- The motions were GRANTED IN FULL as to evidence or statements about Darmer’s previously dismissed claims, his mental health status, his being underinsured, any alleged failure by State Farm to pay under Coverage A, and alternative living expenses that Darmer did not incur. - The motions were GRANTED IN PART as to evidence or statements about State Farm’s corporate structure, profitability, and financial condition. Darmer could still ask about the relevant job titles and responsibilities of State Farm employees who would testify at trial. - The motions were DENIED as to statements using punitive words. The court instructed State Farm’s counsel that objections could be made at trial if particular words were unfairly prejudicial.

The court separately explained its rulings on Coverage A and alternative living expenses. The parties agreed that State Farm had paid the Coverage A policy limit. Darmer argued that State Farm had paid too late and that he should be allowed to present evidence supporting statutory interest. The court concluded that the policy did not require payment of replacement-cost value until repair or replacement was completed, and that State Farm paid the remaining Coverage A limit in September 2017 after receiving Darmer’s signed repair contract. The court therefore found evidence concerning Coverage A payment irrelevant and confusing.

Under Coverage C, the policy required State Farm to pay only necessary increases in living expenses that Darmer actually incurred. Darmer argued that the policy was ambiguous because the declarations page used the phrase “Actual Loss Sustained,” and he sought to present evidence of costs he would have incurred to replace a workshop even though he did not actually incur those costs. The court found the relevant policy language unambiguous and excluded evidence of unincurred alternative living expenses.

State Farm’s third motion

State Farm asked the court to bar Darmer from using a “Golden Rule” argument—an argument asking jurors to put themselves in the defendant’s position. Relying on an Eighth Circuit prohibition of such arguments, the court GRANTED State Farm’s third motion in limine.

State Farm’s fourth motion

State Farm asked to refer in opening and closing statements to Darmer’s prior discovery misconduct and the sanctions imposed by the court, and to cross-examine Darmer and his former attorney about that misconduct. The final order states that State Farm’s fourth motion in limine was GRANTED. The court allowed references in closing statements if the misconduct came up at trial, allowed references to the fact that Darmer was sanctioned, and allowed cross-examination of Darmer and his former attorney. The court did not allow references to the misconduct in opening statements or references to the exact dollar amount of the monetary sanction. The court also stated that State Farm could cross-examine Darmer or his attorney about twelve emails exchanged between Darmer and Troy Brown, Darmer’s public adjuster, which were central to the discovery-misconduct issue.

Effect of the order

This was an evidentiary order governing trial presentations. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying breach-of-contract dispute.