Torres v. Mamadou

Background

Benjamin Torres and Carmen Y. Vasquez brought a personal-injury action arising from an April 27, 2017 motor-vehicle accident on the George Washington Bridge. The case was scheduled for a jury trial. Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine, which is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be used, challenging two proposed New York Pattern Jury Instructions.

The disputed instructions addressed whether Torres suffered either a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. These issues relate to New York’s no-fault insurance law, which limits tort recovery for personal injuries between covered persons. Under that law, recovery for basic economic loss generally is limited to losses exceeding $50,000, and recovery for pain and suffering requires a serious injury.

Late-Disclosed Documents

Plaintiffs relied on documents concerning the vehicle’s Michigan registration and insurance history to argue that Torres and Defendants were not covered persons under New York Insurance Law § 5102(j). Plaintiffs did not dispute that they had failed to disclose those documents during discovery.

The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37. Rule 26 requires disclosure of documents a party may use to support its claims or defenses, as well as applicable insurance agreements and trial exhibits. Rule 37 generally prevents a party from using information that was not disclosed unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

The court found that all four relevant factors favored preclusion: Plaintiffs offered no explanation for the failure to disclose; the documents concerned an important issue affecting the potential scope of damages; Defendants would be prejudiced if Plaintiffs could rely on them; and another trial delay would not cure the prejudice. The court therefore precluded Plaintiffs from relying on the Additional Documents to support the motion or at trial. The court also noted that the documents were not listed as trial exhibits.

No-Fault Jury Instructions

The court ruled that the disputed instructions were proper even if it considered the Additional Documents. Plaintiffs argued that Torres was not a covered person because the relevant insurer was not authorized to do business in New York or had not consented to service of process under New York law. Defendants argued that Torres was covered because Michigan requires no-fault insurance and Plaintiffs had not shown that the Michigan policy lacked no-fault coverage.

The court accepted the statement in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration that the vehicle Torres was driving was registered in Michigan and covered by a Michigan policy. It concluded that Michigan’s no-fault law provided Torres, as the vehicle’s operator, with first-party benefits. The court therefore found that Torres was a covered person under New York Insurance Law § 5102(j).

The court also found that Defendants were covered persons because the Michigan policy was required to provide no-fault coverage and supplied the financial security required by New York law. Because the action was between covered persons, the court held that Torres’s recovery was subject to the serious-injury limitations in New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). It concluded that the disputed instructions were applicable and appropriate for the trial.

Disposition

Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Plaintiffs’ motion in limine. The court precluded Plaintiffs from relying on the Additional Documents in support of the motion or at trial and stated that the two disputed jury instructions would be included in the final jury instructions.