Brian Holcomb and Karen Holcomb v. Safety Specialty Insurance Company

Summary

This Final Pretrial Conference Order governs the upcoming jury trial in Brian Holcomb and Karen Holcomb v. Safety Specialty Insurance Company in the Middle District of Florida. It addresses admitted exhibits, jury selection, trial logistics, witnesses, jury questions, proposed instructions, and several motions in limine. The court grants in part a motion concerning flood-insurance evidence, denies a motion concerning lay witness testimony, grants a motion excluding the Olsen video from lay testimony, and takes a sanctions and involuntary-dismissal motion under advisement.

Holdings

1. Evidence concerning the absence of flood insurance through a different insurer may not be elicited without prior court approval, but evidence that the property had extensive renovation work and did not comply with flood codes is not categorically excluded because flood-code compliance is relevant to whether Hurricane Ian damage was caused by flooding.
2. The court declined to categorically admit or exclude the proposed lay opinion testimony through an in limine ruling. Lay witnesses may offer opinions satisfying Federal Rule of Evidence 701, including opinions based on particularized knowledge from personal or professional experience that do not require specialized technical knowledge, but opposing counsel must object to specific questions at trial.
3. The Olson video was excluded when offered through Olson because it was not relevant to any issue in the case; any minimal relevance from showing storm surge was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and jury confusion from depicting flooding damage to an unrelated structure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that the property lacked flood insurance through a different insurer should be excluded absent prior court approval.
2. Whether the court could categorically preclude plaintiffs and their non-expert fact witnesses from offering lay opinion testimony about the cause or origin of the claimed damages.
3. Whether a video showing flooding damage to a different structure was relevant and admissible.
4. What pretrial procedures should govern the anticipated jury trial.

Disposition

other