Balazhi et al v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LJUMNIE BALAZHI, for herself and on
behalf of her Minor Child, A.B., and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Shaziman Balazhi,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-JMK
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE
(DOCKET 152)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion In Limine
Regarding Policy Limits and Other Monetary Evidence (Docket 152). 	The motion is
opposed.1 	At Plaintiffs’ request, the Court heard oral argument.2 	For the following
reasons, the Court will grant the application.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs seek an order in limine prohibiting Defendants and their counsel
from:
1 Docket 164 (Opposition); Docket 166 (Reply).
2 Docket 178 (Minute Entry). At oral argument, the Court ruled from the bench on Defendant’s
first motion in limine (Docket 151), granting it in part with respect to request no. 4 and denying it in part
with respect to request nos. 1–3. Id.
Case 3:19-cv-00241-JMK Document 182 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 4

Balazhi v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-JMK
Order on Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (Docket 152) 	Page 2
offering any comment, testimony, and/or argument to the jury
about Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) policy limits, medical
payments 	coverage 	limits, 	insurance 	premiums 	paid, 	the
amount of plaintiffs’ settlement with tortfeasor, the tortfeasor’s
liability limits, or any other statements or evidence regarding
amounts 	paid 	to 	or 	received 	by 	plaintiffs 	related 	to 	the
underlying motor vehicle accident.3
Defendant asserts that these categories of evidence warrant exclusion as irrelevant and
unduly prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403, respectively, of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Plaintiffs 	maintain 	that 	the 	evidence 	is 	relevant 	because 	each 	of 	the
categories mentioned relate to Plaintiffs’ underlying claim that Defendants breached the
insurance contract.4
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Motions in limine are a part of a U.S. district court’s “inherent power to
manage the course of trials,” even though the Federal Rules of Evidence do not expressly
provide for them.5 A ruling on a motion in limine is “essentially a preliminary opinion that
falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.”6 “[A] district court may change an
in limine ruling at trial if facts or circumstances arise to warrant the change.”7
3 Docket 152-1 at 1–2.
4 Docket 164 at 2–7.
5 Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984).
6 United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1999).
7 City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Ohler v.
United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000) (“[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the
judge may always change his mind during the course of the trial.”).
Case 3:19-cv-00241-JMK Document 182 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 4

Balazhi v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-JMK
Order on Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (Docket 152) 	Page 3
III. 	DISCUSSION
District courts in this circuit have excluded policy-limit and settlement-
amount evidence in insurance disputes involving UIM.8 	In the District of Alaska, our
courts have looked to the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision in Gibson v. GEICO General
Insurance Co.9 The underlying issue in Gibson was whether a victim’s damages put her
over the UIM threshold. 	The superior court had excluded evidence of the underlying
insurance contract and the victim’s settlement with the other driver. On appeal, the Alaska
Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probative value of evidence regarding the
contract and the settlement “was easily outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice that
might result from suggesting the appropriate range of damages awards.”10
Following Gibson’s reasoning, Judge Burgess once issued an order in limine
in a UIM trial excluding any evidence of a tortfeasor’s policy limits and payments made
under his insurance policy.11 Chief Judge Gleason ruled similarly in a recent case, ordering
that in the UIM phase of the trial—the trial had been bifurcated under Rule 42(b)—all
references to the plaintiffs’ insurance contract with the defendant were to be excluded.12
In the present case, the Court will exclude the evidence in question.
Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim will hinge on the jury’s factual determination regarding
8 E.g., Ibey v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. CV 12-31-M-DWM, 2013 WL 4433796, at *4 (D.
Mont. Aug. 16, 2013).
9 153 P.3d 312 (Alaska 2007).
10 Id. at 317.
11 Hickman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:10-cv-00121-TMB, 2011 WL 13234965, at
*2–3 (D. Alaska Oct. 24, 2011).
12 Lindfors v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:20-cv-00178-SLG, 2022 WL 1241399, at *4–
5 (D. Alaska Apr. 27, 2022).
Case 3:19-cv-00241-JMK Document 182 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 4

Balazhi v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-JMK
Order on Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine (Docket 152) 	Page 4
damages. Regarding that claim, the jury simply will find the amount of damages Plaintiffs
suffered because of the tortfeasor’s actions. The jury’s factual finding then will determine
whether Plaintiffs UIM-based claim succeeds. Evidence about Plaintiffs’ policy limits and
the tortfeasor’s policy limits, how much the tortfeasor settled for, and other payment is not
relevant to the amount of damages Plaintiffs suffered from the car crash. 	Thus, this
evidence is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. 	Defendant’s request that
the evidence be excluded therefore will be granted.
However, the Court recognizes that if this trial is bifurcated into a Phase 1
on the UIM-based breach of contract claim and a Phase 2 on the remaining claim,13 the
evidence in question may become relevant to the second phase of the trial. Accordingly,
if the trial is bifurcated, 	the Court will allow Plaintiffs to revisit this evidence’s
admissibility at a hearing between Phase 1 and Phase 2.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons described in this order, Defendant’s Motion In Limine
Regarding Policy Limits and Other Monetary Evidence at Docket 152 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
13 Plaintiffs’ complaint stated five causes of action: one claim for breach of contract (Claim 1);
three claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Claims 2, 3, and 4); and one claim
for unfair trade practices (Claim 5). Docket 1-1 at 6–9, ¶¶ 13–29. The Court’s order at Docket 159 granted
summary judgment on Claims 2, 3, and 4. Thus, Claims 1 and 5 remain for trial.
Case 3:19-cv-00241-JMK Document 182 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 4