Rayne Memorial United Methodist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAYNE MEMORIAL UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-4129

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, S.I.,
Defendant
SECTION: “E” (3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant, Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.
(“Defendant”), which filed a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Experts, Louis
and/or Lance Relle and Marcel Fournet.
1
The motion is opposed by Plaintiff, Rayne
Memorial United Methodist Church (“Plaintiff”).
2
Defendant filed a reply.
3

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of
Defendant’s expert, Robert Spengler.
4
Defendant filed an opposition.
5
Plaintiff filed a
reply.
6

BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of a Hurricane Ida insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff sued
Defendant on August 24, 2023 for breach of contract as well as statutory penalties and
attorneys’ fees pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973.
7
Plaintiff alleges that, after the
storm, Defendant’s first adjuster, Amy Tomb, inspected the property and prepared a
“severely underscoped” estimate, “miss[ing] much of the most heavily damaged portions

1
R. Doc. 59.
2
R. Doc. 77.
3
R. Doc. 86.
4
R. Doc. 62.
5
R. Doc. 74.
6
R. Doc. 84.
7
R. Doc. 1.
Case 2:23-cv-04129-SM-EJD Document 92 Filed 05/29/25 Page 1 of 5

2
of the Properties.”
8

Plaintiff retained Louis Relle (“Relle”),
9
a construction expert, and Marcel Fournet
(“Fournet”), an architect, “to assist in identifying hurricane damage and ensuring Church
Mutual properly valued the true scope and cost of repairs.”
10
After Plaintiff’s counsel
contacted Defendant to request a reinspection,
11
Defendant retained Robert Spengler
(“Spengler”) as a building consultant to reinspect the church property and provide a new
scope and cost estimate.
12

Defendant seeks to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s construction expert, Relle,
and architectural expert, Fournet.
13
First, Defendant argues the Court should exclude the
expert testimony of Relle and Fournet because their reports do not meet the requirements
of Rule 26.
14
Second, Defendant argues the Relle and Fournet reports are unreliable,
irrelevant, and will confuse the issues for the jury because Relle “use[d] the incorrect price
lists to value the damages” pursuant to the policy language on valuation.
15
Accordingly,
Defendant argues that “[i]n relying on Relle’s estimates, which are irrelevant, Fournet’s
report has rendered itself irrelevant.”
16

Plaintiff seeks to limit the testimony of Spengler, arguing his cost estimates based
on “pre-hurricane pricing data will not assist the jury and should be excluded.”
17

8
R. Doc. 1, p. 3.
9
Assisted by his son Lance Relle.
10
R. Doc. 77, p. 6. Plaintiff represents that Relle and Fournet inspected the properties on “at least ten
separate occasions.” Id.
11
R. Doc. 62-5.
12
R. Doc. 62-6.
13
R. DOC. 59.
14
R. Doc. 59-1, pp. 2-3, 5-8.
15
Id. at p. 3.
16
Id. at p. 8.
17
R. Doc. 62-1, p. 9.
Case 2:23-cv-04129-SM-EJD Document 92 Filed 05/29/25 Page 2 of 5

3
LEGAL STANDARD
“It is well settled that motions in limine are disfavored.”
18
“[T]he purpose of a
motion in limine is to prohibit opposing counsel ‘from mentioning the existence of,
alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to the moving party that
a timely motion to strike or an instruction by the court to the jury to disregard the
offending matter cannot overcome its prejudicial influence on the jurors’ mind.’”
19

“Evidence is relevant” if “it has any tendency to make a fact . . . of consequence in
determining the action” “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
20

“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”
21
The Court may exclude even relevant
evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair
prejudice.”
22
“‘Unfair prejudice’ . . . means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an
improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.”
23

“An order in limine excludes only clearly inadmissible evidence; therefore evidence
should not be excluded before trial unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential
grounds.”
24
Instead, courts should reserve evidentiary rulings until trial so that questions
as to the evidence “may be resolved in the proper context.”
25
“When ruling on motions in
limine, the Court ‘maintains great discretion [as to] evidentiary determinations.’”
26
If the
evidence is not clearly inadmissible on all grounds, it is better for the court to decline to
rule in advance of trial so that it will have the opportunity to resolve issues in context. A

18
Auenson v. Lewis, No. 94-2734, 1996 WL 457258, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 1996) (citing Hawthorne
Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)).
19
MGMTL, LLC v. Strategic Tech., No. 20-2138, 2022 WL 594894, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 28, 2022).
20
FED. R. EVID. 401 (emphasis added).
21
FED. R. EVID. 402.
22
FED. R. EVID. 403.
23
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997).
24
Rivera v. Robinson, 464 F. Supp. 3d 847, 853 (E.D. La. 2020) (quoting Auenson, 1996 WL 457258, at
*1)).
25
Auenson, 1996 WL 457258, at *1.
26
Jackson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 656 F. Supp. 3d 676 (W.D. La. 2023) (quoting Parker v. John W.
Stone Oil Distributors, L.L.C., No. 18-3666, 2019 WL 5212285, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 16, 2019)).
Case 2:23-cv-04129-SM-EJD Document 92 Filed 05/29/25 Page 3 of 5

4
district court is given wide discretion to determine the relevance, prejudicial value, and
admissibility of evidence under Rules 401, 402, and 403.
27

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Both parties seek to restrict the other party’s experts from using various price lists
from various dates. Defendant argues the Fifth Circuit has held that, when policy language
is not ambiguous, the “method for determining the cost . . . of repair[s] or replacement is
clearly spelled out in the valuation provision,” which provides for valuation at the date of
loss.
28
As a result, Defendant argues the relevant price lists for experts to use are those
from the date of loss in August 2021.
29
Plaintiff argues August 2021 price lists “are
premised on July 2021 market data,” rendering them irrelevant as to the calculation of
actual cash value, which takes “into account the replacement costs within a reasonable
time after the accident.”
30

Both motions are denied. Motions in limine are disfavored, and an “order in limine
excludes only clearly inadmissible evidence.”
31
The Court finds that the price lists used by
the experts from various months have relevance to the amount owed under the policy.
32

Any purported weaknesses in each expert’s methodology for calculating his price
estimates based on the date of the price list used may be addressed on cross-examination
at trial.
33

27
Huffman v. Turner Indus. Grp., L.L.C., No. 12-1061, 2013 WL 2351808, at *4 (E.D. La. May 23, 2013).
28
R. Doc. 59-1, pp. 3-4. See First Baptist Church of Iowa v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., S.I., 105 F.4th 775 (5th
Cir. 2024).
29
R. Doc. 59-1, p. 4.
30
R. Doc. 62-1, p. 8, 10 (citing Bradley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 620 F.3d 509, 520 (5th Cir. 2010)).
31
Rivera v. Robinson, 464 F. Supp. 3d 847, 853 (E.D. La. 2020).
32
The Court rejects Defendant’s representation that Church of Iowa, 105 F.4th 775, requires this Court “to
exclude all evidence, testimony, or any other reference of or to the Relle estimates since they do not adhere
to the requirements [of valuation at the date of loss under] the Policy.” R. Doc. 59-1, p. 4.
33
The Court rejects Defendant’s additional arguments pertaining to Relle and Fournet. See Conner v. USAA
Gen. Indem. Co., No. 2:21-CV-03613, 2023 WL 2062829, at *3 (W.D. La. Feb. 16, 2023) (denying a motion
in limine and finding that an expert’s report, containing Xactimate estimates, sufficient under Rule 26); see
also First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 119 F.4th 417, 425 (5th Cir. 2024) (affirming
district court’s denial of a motion in limine to exclude an expert who was asked “to do an adjusting report
Case 2:23-cv-04129-SM-EJD Document 92 Filed 05/29/25 Page 4 of 5

5
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Motions
34
are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of May, 2025.

_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

and give an opinion” after meeting with involved persons, inspecting the property, consulting with an
engineer, and creating an Xactimate estimate, a software that the expert testified was “industry standard”).
Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiff’s explanation for the supplemental disclosure is substantially justified
and/or harmless under Rules 26 and 37(c)(1). Defendant had adequate and timely notice of the bases of
Relle’s opinions underlying his recalculated damages estimates and had the opportunity to depose Relle on
his supplemental estimates such that there is no unfair surprise.
34
R. Doc. 59; R. Doc. 62.
Case 2:23-cv-04129-SM-EJD Document 92 Filed 05/29/25 Page 5 of 5