CHAPTER 10.I. Motion Authorities

• Jurisdiction: United States

I. Motion Authorities

A. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Collateral Source Payments

1. Suggested Motion Text

The plaintiff hereby moves this Court for an order excluding any and all evidence, references to evidence, testimony, or argument relating to collateral payments to plaintiff arising from (Describe Collateral Source Payments, e.g., Payments Under Medical Payments Policy). The motion is based upon the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial, confusing, prejudicial and is expressly prohibited by case law of this state.

2. Motion Summary

This motion is used to exclude evidence of collateral source payments, such as payments under a medical or disability insurance policy. The motion is based upon the court's authority to exclude evidence that is irrelevant [Texas Rule of Evidence 401] or prejudicial [Texas Rule of Evidence 403], and a long line of leading cases. See Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Tex. 2011); Jones v. Red Arrow Heavy Hauling, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1991, writ denied).

3. Supporting Authorities

Sky View at Las Palmas, LLC v. Mendez, 555 S.W.3d 101, 114 (Tex. 2018) ("The collateral source rule bars a wrongdoer from offsetting his liability by insurance benefits independently procured by the injured party.").

Sky View at Las Palmas, LLC v. Mendez, 555 S.W.3d 101, 114 (Tex. 2018) ("The theory behind the [collateral source] rule is that a wrongdoer should not have the benefit of insurance independently procured by the injured party, and to which the wrongdoer was not privy.").

Sky View at Las Palmas, LLC v. Mendez, 555 S.W.3d 101, 114 (Tex. 2018) ("[I]f a payment is within the collateral-source rule, the principle forbidding more than one recovery for the same loss is not applicable.").

Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Tex. 2011) (collateral source rule precludes any reduction in a tortfeasor's liability because of benefits received by the plaintiff from someone else).

Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Tex. 2011) (evidence of a claim of damages that are not compensable is inadmissible).

Brown v. Am. Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980) (collateral source rule prevented evidence of insurance payments made to plaintiff under policy plaintiff had obtained on his own).

McMillan v. Hearne, 584 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.) ("The theory behind the collateral source rule is that a wrongdoer should not have the benefit of insurance independently procured by the injured party, and to which the wrongdoer was not privy.").

Rentech Steel, L.L.C. v. Teel, 299 S.W.3d 155, 162 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, pet. dism'd) ("The theory behind the collateral source rule is that a wrongdoer should not have the benefit of insurance independently procured by injured party and to which wrongdoer was not privy. . . . However, when the wrongdoer has provided for those damages, either by personal payment or insurance payment, the damages claim has been satisfied, and to permit the injured party in such circumstances to keep the insurance money and also collect from the wrongdoer would be a double recovery not sanctioned by law.").

Matbon, Inc. v. Gries, 288 S.W.3d 471, 481 n.5 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) ("[The] collateral source rule is a rule of evidence that prevents testimony that the injured party has received payments from insurance or other sources.").

Tate v. Hernandez, 280 S.W.3d 534, 539 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) ("[The] collateral source rule is a common law rule that, in part, prevents a wrongdoer from benefiting from a collateral source of discharge of liability for medical expenses independently procured by a party, including the injured party, not in privity with the wrongdoer.").

Tate v. Hernandez, 280 S.W.3d 534, 539 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.) ("[The] discharge of medical expenses through bankruptcy is akin to the discharge of an obligation by a collateral source.").

LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 229 S.W.3d 469, 480 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) ("[The] collateral source rule is both a rule of evidence and damages.").

LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 229 S.W.3d 469, 480 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (under the collateral source rule, "a defendant is not entitled to present evidence of, or obtain an offset for, funds received by the plaintiff from a collateral source").

Triumph Trucking, Inc. v. S. Corporate Ins. Mgrs., Inc., 226 S.W.3d 466, 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (under the collateral source rule, "a defendant may not offer evidence of payment from a collateral source and may not take an offset for such payments").

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Emergency Servs., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 284, 299 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (party precluded from using "pass-on" defense to mitigate damages where would violate collateral source rule).

Taylor v. Am. Fabritech, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 613, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (offset for disability payments received by plaintiff improper under collateral source rule).

Kendrix v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (references to payments received from collateral source, including those from workers' compensation, are improper and prejudicial).

Lee-Wright, Inc. v. Hall, 840 S.W.2d 572, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (evidence regarding workers' compensation benefits properly excluded under collateral source rule).

Jones v. Red Arrow Heavy Hauling, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1991, writ denied) (evidence that injured party received benefits from collateral source inadmissible under rules of relevancy).

a. Gratuitous Payments

Oil Country Haulers, Inc. v. Griffin, 668 S.W.2d 903, 904 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ) (plaintiff can recover amount of unpaid medical bills and can recover for medical services supplied gratuitously).

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Craig, 430 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (trial court properly declined to allow offset for wage received by plaintiff regardless of whether gratuitous or earned).

Morgan v. Woodruff, 208 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1948, no writ) (plaintiff can recover amounts for lost wages and medical expenses even if paid by insurance, contract, or gratuitously).

Graves v. Poe, 118 S.W.2d 969, 970 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1938, writ dism'd) (plaintiff entitled to recover lost wages and cost of medical bills even though wages gratuitously covered by employer and medical bills gratuitously paid by employer's insurance carrier).

Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Johansen, 143 S.W. 1186, 1186 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1912), aff'd, 179 S.W. 853 (Tex. 1915) (plaintiff could recover lost wages despite employer's having gratuitously paid wages during period of injury).

b. Medical or Liability Policy Payments

Brown v. Am. Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980) (collateral source rule prevented evidence of insurance payments made to plaintiff due to policy plaintiff had obtained personally).

Taylor v. Am. Fabritech, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 613, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (offset for disability payments received by plaintiff improper under collateral source rule).

Morgan v. Woodruff, 208 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1948, no writ) (plaintiff can recover amounts for lost wages and medical expenses even if paid by insurance, contract, or gratuitously).

Graves v. Poe, 118 S.W.2d 969, 970 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1938, writ dism'd) (plaintiff entitled to recover lost wages and cost of medical bills even though wages gratuitously covered by employer and medical bills gratuitously paid by employer's insurance carrier).

c. Disability and Other Payments

Taylor v. Am. Fabritech, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 613, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (offset for disability payments received by plaintiff improper under collateral source rule).

Montandon v. Colehour, 469 S.W.2d 222, 229 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1971, no writ) (evidence of government benefits plaintiff received due to prior military service improper under collateral source rule).

Mo.-Pac. Ry. Co. v. Willingham, 348 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1961, no writ) (evidence of pension benefits plaintiff would be able to receive if retired properly excluded).

d. Workers' Compensation Payments

Kendrix v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (references to payments received from collateral source, including those from workers' compensation, improper and prejudicial).

Lee-Wright, Inc. v. Hall, 840 S.W.2d 572, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (evidence regarding workers' compensation benefits were properly excluded under the collateral source rule).

e. Wage Payments

Ryan v. Hardin, 495 S.W.2d 345, 350 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1973, no writ) (plaintiff can recover for lost earning capacity where wages paid by employer; that wages are paid is irrelevant).

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Craig, 430 S.W.2d 573, 578 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (trial court properly declined to allow an offset for wages received by the plaintiff regardless of whether they were gratuitous or earned).

Morgan v. Woodruff, 208 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1948, no writ) (plaintiff can recover amounts for lost wages and medical expenses even if paid by insurance, contract, or gratuitously).

Graves v. Poe, 118 S.W.2d 969, 970 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1938, writ dism'd) (plaintiff entitled to recover lost wages and cost of medical bills even though wages gratuitously covered by employer and medical bills gratuitously paid by employer's insurance carrier).

St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Clifford, 148 S.W. 1163, 1165...