Preview:

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. (Filed: June 9, 2011) SUPERIOR COURT

HERITAGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, : INC., VITO'S EXPRESS, INC., : SWIMMING POOL SPECIALIST, INC., : J. BROOMFIELD & SONS, INC., : STERLING INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, : INC., and LEONELLI AND VICARIO, : LTD., individually and on behalf of all those : similarly situated : : V. : : THE BEACON MUTUAL INSURANCE : COMPANY, JOSEPH ARTHUR : SOLOMON, MICHAEL DENNIS LYNCH : and JOHN DOES 1-100 :

C.A. No. PB 02-7016

DECISION SILVERSTEIN, J. Before the Court is Defendants The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company

(Beacon), Joseph Arthur Solomon (Solomon), Michael Dennis Lynch, and John Does 1-100's (collectively, Defendants) Motion in Limine. Defendants seek an order preventing Plaintiffs from relying on a Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (DBR) April 2007 Market Conduct Examination Report (Examination Report) as prima facie evidence in this case.

1

I Facts and Travel The facts and travel of this case have been well-documented in several prior written decisions of this Court and our Supreme Court. 1 For that reason, the Court will not repeat the facts and travel of this case. II Discussion "A motion in limine is `widely recognized as a salutary device to avoid the impact of unfairly prejudicial evidence upon the jury and to save a significant amount of time at the trial.'" Owens v. Silvia, 838 A.2d 881, 889 (R.I. 2003) (quoting BHG, Inc. v. F.A.F., Inc., 784 A.2d 884, 886 (R.I. 2001). "It is well settled that `a motion in limine is not intended to be a dispositive motion.'" BHG, Inc., 784 A.2d at 886 (underscoring added) (quoting Ferguson v. Marshall Contractors, Inc., 745 A.2d 147, 150 (R.I. 2000)). Rather, "it has been used in this state primarily to `prevent the proponent of potentially prejudicial matter from displaying it to the jury . . . in any manner until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself.'"
1

Id. (quoting Ferguson, 745 A.2d at 150-51); see also Owens, 838 A.2d at 889

See Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. the Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. 02-7016, 2011 WL 202299 (R.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2011); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Marques, 14 A.3d 932 (R.I. 2011); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. PB-02-7016, 2009 WL 3328481 (R.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 15, 2009); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. PB-02-7016, 2008 WL 4376187 (R.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 4, 2008); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Marques, No. PB-06-4420, 2007 WL 2692031 (R.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2007); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Marques, No. PB-06-4420, 2007 WL 2405917 (R.I. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2007); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. PB-02-7016, 2007 WL 1234481 (R.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2007); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. PB-02-7016, 2005 WL 2101412 (R.I. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2005); Heritage Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Beacon Mut. Ins. Co., No. PB-02-7016, 2004 WL 253547 (R.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2004). 2

(underscoring added) (quoting State v. Cook, 782 A.2d 653, 654-55 (R.I. 2001)) (explaining that "`the granting of a motion in limine need not be taken as a final determination of the admissibility of the evidence.' . . . The trial justice can reconsider the motion in limine during the trial or in rebuttal."). Furthermore, a determination to exclude evidence "`is within the sound discretion of the trial justice and, absent a showing of abuse of this discretion, [our Supreme Court] will not disturb a ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence.'" Fravala v. City of Cranston ex rel. Baron, 996 A.2d 696, 703 (R.I. 2010) (quoting Perrotti v. Gonicberg, 877 A.2d 631, 642 (R.I. 2005)). A In their Motion in Limine, Defendants seek to prevent Plaintiffs from relying on DBR's Examination Report as prima facie evidence. 2 They assert that G.L. 1956

Download 02-7016.pdf

Rhode Island Law