CHAPTER 10.II. Sample Motions

• Jurisdiction: United States

II. Sample Motions

A. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Collateral Source Payments

NO.__________

__________

v.

__________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

__________ JUDICIAL COURT

__________ COUNTY, TEXAS

Motion to Exclude Evidence of Collateral Source Payments

Comes now___, Plaintiff in this cause, and file this, his Motion to Exclude Evidence of Collateral Source Payments, and in support thereof, Plaintiff would show the Court the following:

1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises from an automobile accident that occurred on September 18, 2018, when the Defendant crashed his Ford Mustang into the rear of Plaintiff's Honda Civic. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff incurred severe neck and back injuries, property damage, and lost wages.

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was insured with a "Medical Payments" policy by his automobile insurer. As of the date of this motion, Plaintiff has been reimbursed in the amount of $3,225 for medical expenses arising from the accident.

By this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order precluding the introduction of any evidence, or mention of evidence, relating to the insurance payments. This motion is based upon the grounds that evidence of payments by a collateral source, such as Plaintiff's medical insurance provider, is irrelevant, immaterial and clearly inadmissible under the laws of this State.

2. THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF AN IN LIMINE MOTION

The Court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to exclusion as unduly prejudicial. Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez, 453 S.W.3d 917, 920 n.3 (Tex. 2016); In re BCH Development, LLC, 525 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding). Texas Rule of Evidence 403 allows the court to exclude evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See Diamond Offshore Services Ltd. v. Williams, 542 S.W.3d 539, 549 (Tex. 2018); Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 34 (Tex. 2014).

Moreover, the court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence outside the presence or hearing of the jury. See Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d 353, 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Kendrix v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111, 113 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, writ denied); Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166; and Texas Rules of Evidence 103 and 104.

3. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL PAYMENTS MADE TO PLAINTIFF BY A COLLATERAL SOURCE

A Defendant may not mitigate damages from collateral payments where the Plaintiff has been compensated by an independent source, such as insurance, pension, continued wages, or disability 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).

The principle espoused in the Taylor decision, known as the "collateral source rule," is well-recognized by the courts of this state. See Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390, 395 (Tex. 2011); 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 on own); 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 properly excluded under collateral source rule); and Jones v. Red Arrow Heavy Hauling, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1991, writ denied) (evidence injured party received benefits from collateral source inadmissible under rules of relevancy).

Texas Rule of Evidence 402 states that "evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible." Relevant evidence is defined by Texas Rule of Evidence 401 as "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." See Torrington v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 845 n.13 (Tex. 2000). Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Morale v. State, 557 S.W.3d 569, 573 (Tex. 2018); Diamond Offshore Services Ltd. v. Williams, 542 S.W.3d 539, 549 (Tex. 2018).

In the present case, Plaintiff received reimbursement for medical expenses incurred as a result of the subject accident, under a Medical Payments provision of his automobile policy. These facts are squarely on point with the decisions cited above. Allowing evidence of the insurance payments would be wholly inconsistent with the collateral source rule and would be prejudicial error. See Kendrix v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 907 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, writ denied); Jones v. Red Arrow Heavy Hauling, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1991, writ denied).

4. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court exclude any and all evidence, or mention of evidence, regarding payments from Plaintiff's insurer for reimbursement of medical expenses arising from Plaintiff's injuries in this case.

Dated:(Date)

By: __________

(Name of Counsel)

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

(Name of Plaintiff)

B. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Defendant's Liability

NO.__________

__________

v.

__________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

__________ JUDICIAL COURT

__________ COUNTY, TEXAS

Motion to Exclude Evidence of Defendant's Liability

Comes now___, Plaintiff in this cause, and file this, his Motion to Exclude Evidence of Defendant's Liability, and in support thereof, Plaintiff would show the Court the following:

1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises from a moderate speed automobile accident between the Plaintiff and Defendant that occurred on or about January 22, 2018, in Austin, Texas. In interrogatory responses, requests for admissions, and deposition statements, the Defendant repeatedly admitted to being the cause of the accident.

The only issue that remains in dispute is the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's injuries.

The Defendant anticipates that the Plaintiff will explore in great detail a number of liability issues at trial, including Defendant's conduct immediately prior to the accident, and the condition of the Defendant's brakes when the incident occurred. Defendant's belief is based upon a number of factors, including Plaintiff's proposed Exhibit List, the Plaintiff's designation of an automobile reconstruction expert, and...