Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell

W.D. Washington

Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell

DecidedMay 27, 2025

Docket2:21-cv-01389

StatusUnknown

This text of Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell (Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) 10 THE MIDWEST, a Wisconsin Corporation, ) No. 2:21-cv-01389 JHC ) 11 Plaintiff, ) 12 ) ORDER ON DEFENDANTS ROBIN v. ) HOWELL AND ROBERT HOWELL 13 ) JR.’S CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS ROBERT HOWELL, JR., a single individual; ) IN LIMINE 14 ROBIN HOWELL and ROBERT HOWELL, ) SR., a married couple; and SIERRA PACIFIC 15 LAND & TIMBER COMPANY, a California ) corporation, ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 THIS MATTER comes before this Court on Defendant Robin Howell and Robert 19 20 Howell Jr.’s Consolidated Motions In Limine. Dkt. # 157. The Court has considered the 21 motion and all materials submitted in connection with the motions, including materials 22 submitted in response. The Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1. Statement of Probable Testimony: 24 Reserved. The Court expects the parties to comply with Federal Rules of Evidence 25 801 and 802. 26

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT 2. Prior Testimony of Available Witnesses: 1 Reserved. The Court expects the parties to comply with Federal Rules of Evidence 2 3 801 and 802. 4 3. Failure to Call a Witness: 5 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 6 4. Scope of Rebuttal/Closing: 7 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 8 5. Best Evidence: 9 Granted. 10 11 6. Settlement Offers: 12 Granted. The Court reserves on the question of the Howells “opening the door.” 13 7. Exclusion of Non-Party Witnesses: 14 Granted. 15 8. Advance Notice of Witness Order: 16 Granted as to witnesses; denied as to the remaining items. 17 18 9. No Amendment of Claims: 19 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 20 10. No Surprise Evidence: 21 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 22 11. Robert Howell Jr.’s Unrelated Criminal Charges: 23 Reserved in light of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1). Before making any 24 reference to any such evidence, Homesite shall alert the Court outside the presence of the 25 26 jury, so that the Court may resolve any objection.

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT 12. References to Robin Howell’s Application for Insurance: 1 Reserved. 2 3 13. References to Misrepresentation or Concealment of Information: 4 Denied. 5 14. References to Two Separate Properties: 6 Denied. 7 15. References to the Location of the “Insured Premises”: 8 Denied. 9 16. Irrelevant, Undated, and Unauthenticated Exhibits: 10 11 Reserved. 12 17. Expert Testimony: 13 Denied. This is an untimely motion challenging expert witness testimony. See Dkt. # 14 110; Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 3d 881, 887 (W.D. Wash. 15 2022) (declining to consider untimely Daubert arguments); Gill v. Magan, 2021 WL 16 1589521, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2021) (same); Pacheco v. United States, 2020 WL 17 18 3050143, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2020) (same). 19 18. Apology or Remorse: 20 Granted. 21 19. Providing the Howells with a Defense: 22 Reserved. 23 // 24 // 25 26 //

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT DATED THIS 27th day of May, 2025.

2 Cok. 4, Chua John H. Chun 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT HOWELL JR.’S MOTION IN LIMINE- 4 2:21-cv-01389 JHC

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) 10 THE MIDWEST, a Wisconsin Corporation, ) No. 2:21-cv-01389 JHC ) 11 Plaintiff, ) 12 ) ORDER ON DEFENDANTS ROBIN v. ) HOWELL AND ROBERT HOWELL 13 ) JR.’S CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS ROBERT HOWELL, JR., a single individual; ) IN LIMINE 14 ROBIN HOWELL and ROBERT HOWELL, ) SR., a married couple; and SIERRA PACIFIC 15 LAND & TIMBER COMPANY, a California ) corporation, ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 THIS MATTER comes before this Court on Defendant Robin Howell and Robert 19 20 Howell Jr.’s Consolidated Motions In Limine. Dkt. # 157. The Court has considered the 21 motion and all materials submitted in connection with the motions, including materials 22 submitted in response. The Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1. Statement of Probable Testimony: 24 Reserved. The Court expects the parties to comply with Federal Rules of Evidence 25 801 and 802. 26

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT 2. Prior Testimony of Available Witnesses: 1 Reserved. The Court expects the parties to comply with Federal Rules of Evidence 2 3 801 and 802. 4 3. Failure to Call a Witness: 5 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 6 4. Scope of Rebuttal/Closing: 7 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 8 5. Best Evidence: 9 Granted. 10 11 6. Settlement Offers: 12 Granted. The Court reserves on the question of the Howells “opening the door.” 13 7. Exclusion of Non-Party Witnesses: 14 Granted. 15 8. Advance Notice of Witness Order: 16 Granted as to witnesses; denied as to the remaining items. 17 18 9. No Amendment of Claims: 19 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 20 10. No Surprise Evidence: 21 Granted. This ruling is reciprocal. 22 11. Robert Howell Jr.’s Unrelated Criminal Charges: 23 Reserved in light of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1). Before making any 24 reference to any such evidence, Homesite shall alert the Court outside the presence of the 25 26 jury, so that the Court may resolve any objection.

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT 12. References to Robin Howell’s Application for Insurance: 1 Reserved. 2 3 13. References to Misrepresentation or Concealment of Information: 4 Denied. 5 14. References to Two Separate Properties: 6 Denied. 7 15. References to the Location of the “Insured Premises”: 8 Denied. 9 16. Irrelevant, Undated, and Unauthenticated Exhibits: 10 11 Reserved. 12 17. Expert Testimony: 13 Denied. This is an untimely motion challenging expert witness testimony. See Dkt. # 14 110; Mooney v. Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 3d 881, 887 (W.D. Wash. 15 2022) (declining to consider untimely Daubert arguments); Gill v. Magan, 2021 WL 16 1589521, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2021) (same); Pacheco v. United States, 2020 WL 17 18 3050143, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2020) (same). 19 18. Apology or Remorse: 20 Granted. 21 19. Providing the Howells with a Defense: 22 Reserved. 23 // 24 // 25 26 //

ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT DATED THIS 27th day of May, 2025.

2 Cok. 4, Chua John H. Chun 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER ON DEFS. RBN HOWELL AND RBT HOWELL JR.’S MOTION IN LIMINE- 4 2:21-cv-01389 JHC

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homesite-insurance-company-of-the-midwest-v-howell-wawd-2025.