IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

DU PAGE COUNTY, WHEATON, ILLINOIS

 

ROBERT CHAMBERLIN,                                           )

            )

                                                            Plaintiff,            )          

v.                                                                                 )           No.: 2003 L 000103                  

                                                                                    )          

KURT KAMKA, Individually, and as Agent of               )

ROADRUNNERS AUTO TRANSPORT, INC.,           )

                                                                        )          

                                                            Defendants.      )

 

AMENDED MOTIONS IN LIMINE WITH ORDER

 

            NOW COME the Defendants, KURT KAMKA and ROADRUNNERS DRIVEAWAY, INC, by and through their attorney, LAW OFFICES OF LOWELL D. SNORF, III, and for purposes of trial request the Plaintiff, ROBERT CHAMBERLIN, III, be barred from testifying or referencing to the following:

 

1.         Bar Robert Chamberlin, III from referencing, using, or relying upon, any of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s paid medical bills as damages in this case.

 

                                                REASON:       Robert Chamberlin, III admitted all of his medical bills were paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (Robert Chamberlin deposition, p. 51, 58).  State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s medical payment subrogation claim was the subject of a lawsuit entitled, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Linda and Robert Chamberlin v.  Kurt Kamka and Roadrunners Driveaway, Inc., Case No. 2002 AR 003368 (see Exhibit “A,” State Farm Complaint, Par. 13).  The insurance contract between State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Linda Chamberlin assigned the right of medical payment subrogation directly to State Farm Mutual Insurance Company.  The medical bills paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company were as follows:

 

                                                                                    City of Naperville EMS:        03/27/01                  $              300.00

 

Edward Hospital:                    03/27/01;                              1,818.56

                                                                05/25/01

                                                                                                                Naperville Radiologists:          03/27/01                                  334.00

                                                                                                                M & M Orthopedics:             04/05/01 -                                514.00    

                                                                06/12/01

                                                                                                                Dr. Hassan Moghadam:          05/22/01                                  240.00

Orthosport:                             04/10/02 -                             4,369.00

                                                                07/12/01

                                                                                                                TOTAL BILLS:                                                     $           7,575.56

 

      On February 24, 2004, Lancer Insurance Company, on behalf of Kurt Kamka and Roadrunner Driveaway, Inc., agreed to settle State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s property damage and medical payment case for $13,000.00.  Settlement of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s case by Lancer Insurance Company, on behalf of Kurt Kamka and Roadrunner Driveaway, Inc., included State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s property damage with deductible, and all medical bills paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, including bills from the City of Naperville, Edward Hospital, Naperville Radiologists, M & M Orthopedics, Dr. Hassan Moghadam, and Orthosport (see Exhibit “B,” February 24, 2004 Court Order).       

 

As Lancer Insurance Company paid State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s medical payment subrogation claim, Robert Chamberlin, III can no longer make reference to these medical bills or include them as damages in this case, as they are not relevant to this case.  In  Illinois, the collateral source rule is defined as:

 

“Benefits received by an injured party from a source wholly independent of and collateral to, a tortfeasor will not diminish damages otherwise recoverable from the fortfeasor” §40 Collateral Source Rule, Illinois Law and Practice, p. 416 (2001).

           


The collateral source rule is predicated on the theory a tortfeasor has no interest in and no right to benefit from monies received by the injured person from sources unconnected with the defendant.  A collateral source is “a source [that] is entirely independent of and collateral to a wrongdoer who is legally responsible for the injuries.”  Thus, while a victim’s own insurance may be a collateral source, a tortfeasor’s insurance is not.  Chenega Corporation v. Exxon Corporation, 991 P.2d 769, 789 (Alaska, 1999).

 

When either the Defendant or Defendant’s insurance carrier is the source of payment, the Plaintiff cannot rely on those damages paid for by the defendant.  People v. Roop, 267 Ill.App.3d 191, 658 N.E.2d 469 (3rd Dist., 1995).  Expanding on the collateral source rule exception discussed in People v. Roop, 658 N.E.2d at 469, is the decision of Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.App.4th 125, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 643 (2nd Dist., 1994) which in part wrote:

 

“Under the collateral source rule, one who suffers injury through the wrongful act of another is not precluded from proceeding against the wrongdoer for compensation, nor is the amount of compensation reduced, by receipt by the victim of payments from a source independent of the wrongdoer (Anheuser‑Busch, Inc. v. Starley (1946) 28 Cal.2d 347, 349, 170 P.2d 448), and the defendant in such an action cannot introduce evidence of any such payments (Helfend v. Southern Calif. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 6‑13, 84 Cal.Rptr. 173, 465 P.2d 61). However, the rule does not apply if the victim has been reimbursed before trial by a cash payment from the defendant personally or from the defendant's insurance carrier. (Blake v. E. Thompson Petroleum Repair Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 823, 832 216 Cal.Rptr. 568; Turner v. Mannon (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 134, 140, 45 Cal.Rptr. 831; Dodds v. Bucknum (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 206, 212-213, 29 Cal.Rptr. 393.).”

The collateral source rule is still concerned with the source of payment.  In order for Robert Chamberlin, III to invoke the collateral source rule, Robert Chamberlin, III must show the benefits Robert Chamberlin, III received are from a source independent of and collateral to Kurt Kamka and Roadrunners Driveaway, Inc. or Defendants’ insurance carrier.  Here, the collateral source rule does not apply because the medical bills were paid by Defendants’ insurance carrier, a source not wholly independent of and collateral to Kurt Kamka and Roadrunners Driveaway, Inc.

 

To allow Plaintiff to seek damages for the medical expenses paid by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company prejudices Defendants. Defendants already paid the bills. 

 

As a matter of public policy, Defendants would never have agreed to pay State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s subrogation claim if the Plaintiff could then use the same bills to force Defendants to pay medical expense bills a second time.

 


                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            2.         No reference that Defendants have insurance; no reference to Defendants’ insurance adjusters, Defendants’ insurance claim handling, or any matter referencing Defendants’ insurance or insurance investigators; no reference Defendants’ insurance carrier is paying any bills.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

3.         No reference to any prior settlement, compromise, or offer.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

 4.        That all counsel refrain from vouching for the credibility of any witness.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

5.         That  all  counsel refrain from  asking jurors to  put themselves  in the  position of Plaintiff or Defendants.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

6.         No reference to any police reports, as such evidence is inadmissible under 625 ILCS 5/11-412.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn             

 

            7.        No reference that David E. Detzner of Active Investigations was hired by any insurance company to provide testimony in this case; no reference David E. Detzner had conferences with any insurance claim representative about any aspect of this case, or that David E. Detzner customarily testifies for insurance companies. 

 

            Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            8.         No reference to the size or financial wealth of any individual or entity named as a Defendant in this case.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

             

9.         Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer and any witness or party from discussing any tickets issued to  Kurt Kamka.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn             

 

            10.        Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer from offering accident reconstruction testimony, as such opinions have not been disclosed under S.C.R. 213; there are occurrence witnesses to the action, and reconstruction testimony is not admissible.  Hiscott v. Peters, 324 Ill.App 3d 114, 754 N.E.2d 839 (2nd Dist., 2001).

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

           

            11.        No reference to any lost income claim of Robert Chamberlin, III, as said claim has been withdrawn; no reference Robert Chamberlin, III could not work as a result of the accident or injuries caused by the accident (see attachment “A”).  Defendants request this Honorable Court exclude any testimony or documentary evidence or mention of any evidence regarding Plaintiff’s claim for wage loss, and bar Plaintiff from arguing or referencing Plaintiff missed time from work, worked in a diminished capacity, lost income and/or lost contracting jobs.  

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            12.        No reference that Plaintiff was in a weakened condition as a result of the March 27, 2001 accident and is now more susceptible to future injury; no treatment opinion or S.C.R. 213 disclosure has been offered to establish same. 

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            13.        Relative to the March 27, 2001 occurrence, no discussion, reference or evidence that Kurt Kamka is responsible for the increased risk of future injuries to Robert Chamberlin, III resulting from the March 27, 2001 accident.  Dillon v. Evanston Hospital 771 N.E. 2d. 357 (2002).  No opinions have been disclosed pursuant to S.C.R. 213.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            14.        No reference as to permanency, permanent medical condition, or permanent disability; no S.C.R. 213(f) and (g) disclosures have identified any such condition; no doctor’s testimony has been offered to support a claim of permanency; Robert Chamberlin, III testified no physician ever diagnosed a permanent injury or disability (Robert Chamberlin, III deposition, p.71).

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn           

 

15.        No reference to the injuries of anyone other than Robert Chamberlin, III; no reference to injuries or property damage of any party or any vehicle such as would suggest Robert Chamberlin, III was injured.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn           

 

            16.        Pursuant to DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill.App.3d 530, 794 N.E.2d 875 (2003), no use or reference to vehicle photographs in this case.  State Farm’s property damage and medical payment subrogation claim has been settled.  Defendants are admitting negligence in causing the accident.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s use of any vehicle photographs is irrelevant to the case.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

17.        Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer from offering opinions as to fault of any involved driver,  as no such opinions have been disclosed in any S.C.R. 213 interrogatory answers.

 

REASON:       The testimony of Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer should be confined to the matters contained within the police report and no other opinions should be allowed.  There has been no disclosure of any opinions, conclusions, or qualifications of Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer other than what is contained in report.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

                       

            18.        Bar any reference or implication by Bar Police Officer Edwards and/or any police officer as to the fault of any driver in this case; further bar him from describing the amount of property damage.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            19.        Bar Plaintiff from requesting or arguing Plaintiff is entitled to aggravation of any pre-existing ailment from David Russo resulting from the March 27, 2001 accident.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            20.        Bar Plaintiff from making any claim for future medical expense; no future claim for medical expense has been disclosed in response to S.C.R. 213(f) and (g) interrogatories; further, no claim for future medical expense is warranted as Plaintiff’s last treatment date was may 16, 2001.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            21.        No lay witness medical testimony concerning any medical diagnosis rendered or given by any physician; no hearsay reference to any physician’s medical finding.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            22.        No testimony by any lay person or physician the speed of any accident is indicative of any injuries; no opinion is disclosed in any S.C.R. 213 interrogatory answers, nor is it an elaboration of a disclosed opinion.  Boehm v. Ramsey, 329 Ill.App.3d 357, 771 N.E.2d 493 (4th Dist., 2002).

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            23.        No testimony by any person as to the speed of any vehicles involved in the accident.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            24.        Bar all parties from referencing or arguing any medical bills or medical expenses incurred in this case.  All medical bills have been paid by Defendants.  

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

           

            25.        Bar Robert Chamberlin, III from referencing or arguing any medical expenses incurred are a factor in any claim for pain and suffering and/or loss of normal life.  I.P.I. 30.04.01 and I.P.I. 30.05 are separate damage instructions.   Arguing medical expenses are a factor in any claim for pain and suffering and loss of normal life is inconsistent with I.P.I. 30.04.01 and I.P.I. 30.05 and should be barred. 

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            26.        Bar any discussion by any party about property damage to the vehicles, as the subrogation property damage claim has been paid and is no longer relevant in the case.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn               

 

            27.        In this case, the Defendants have admitted to liability. As such, any evidence relating to the nature of his liability and his actions leading up to the subject incident, are irrelevant and should be excluded.  Courts have held that evidence of Defen­dant s liability might be relevant if necessary to prove damages. See Phillips  v.  Lawrence, 87 Ill.App.2d 60, 61-63 (5th Dist. 1967).  However, in the present case, the facts surrounding the cause of the accident will in no way assist the jury in determining the nature and extent of the Plain­tiff s injuries or damages.  In the present case, the circumstances of the occurrence do not provide probative value regarding the nature of the injuries. In addition, the nature of the injuries can be fully established through other competent evidence and therefore, admitting the liability evidence would be cumula­tive, even if it were probative. Any evidence of liability will only serve to prejudice the Defen­dant in the eyes of the jurors, by focusing on Defendant’s wrongdoing. This is not only improper, but, as stated above, it is clearly prejudicial to the Defendant.  For all the reasons stated above, the Defen­dants request that this Court exclude any reference at trial, including physical evidence, witness testimony, and attorney comments relating to the Defendants’ liability.  Defendants move this Honorable Court for an order excluding any and all evidence, references to evidence, testimony or argument relating to Defendants’ liability in this action.  Defendants have admitted they were negligent, and therefore the only issues remaining are the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.  The motion is based upon the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant, immaterial, confusing, and will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to Defendants.

 

                        Granted               Denied               Reserved               Withdrawn                  

 

 

 

Atty. No.          71148

Name               Lowell D. Snorf, III                                                                                 , 20­­__   

Attorney for      Defendants

Address           77 West Washington, Suite 703                          ENTER:

City                  Chicago

Telephone         (312) 726-8961                                                                                                                                                                                   

            Judge                       Judge’s No.