Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF CASE NO. 2:22-CV-02782

DEQUINCY

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO S I MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is an “Omnibus Motion In Limine” (Doc. 151) filed by Defendant

Church Mutual Insurance Co. S I (“Church Mutual”).

BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura made landfall in Southwest Louisiana. In the

original Complaint, The Pentecostal Church of DeQuincy (“TPCD”) alleges that it

sustained damage from the Hurricane, and that Church Mutual has underestimated the cost

of repairs. The five (5) buildings considered as “Covered Property” at issue in this litigation

are identified as the: (1) Sanctuary, (2) Activity Center, (3) Sunday School/Fellowship

Hall, (4) Mobile Home, and (5) Pole Barn. During the relevant time period, Church Mutual

provided coverage for the Covered Property.

TPCD reported its claimed loss on September 1, 2020. For a complete recitation of

the facts, see the Memorandum Ruling issued on July 21, 2025.1

1 Doc. 117.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Church Mutual moves the Court for an order to exclude any and all forms of

evidence, argument or mention of the following:

1. Reserve amounts, rough order of magnitude amounts, or changes in

those amounts;

2. Excluding testimony and evidence that communicates to the jury the

policy limits of the policy issued by Church Mutual Insurance

Company;

3. Premised on the “Golden Rule” or the “Conscience of the Community”

with respect to any damage issue;

4. Jury verdicts, judgments, and awards rendered in other cases;

5. Consequential damages such as mental anguish, loss of enjoyment or

inconvenience of Plaintiff, its clergy, the school, employees, or its

members;

6. Awarding punitive damages to punish Church Mutual; and

7. The financial condition, net worth, wealth, overall profits, income, or

assets of Church Mutual.

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if: “(a) it has any

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Federal Rule of Evidence 401.

Evidence is generally admissible so long as it is relevant and not barred by the

Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by

the Supreme Court. Federal Rule of Evidence 402. “The court may exclude relevant

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of

the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,

wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Federal Rule of Evidence

403. The Fifth Circuit instructs that “[t]he exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should

occur only sparingly[.]” Id., citing U.S. v. Pace, 10. F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993).

“Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair prejudice, substantially

outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule 403.”

Id., citing Pace, 10. F.3d at 1115. The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the

evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground. Zenone v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2023

WL 5120929, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 9, 2023).

Reserve and rough order of magnitude amounts

Church Mutual argues that evidence of reserve and rough order of magnitude

(“ROM”) amounts are irrelevant because the Policy only covers an insured loss and

reserves do not equate to the amount of the loss. Thus, Church Mutual contends that this

evidence would only be prejudicial.

TPCD remarks that despite the split among the Louisiana Federal District courts

regarding reserve amount, this Court has found that “loss reserve information and/or

documentation may be relevant to a plaintiff’s bad faith claim.” Charles Town Properties

of Louisiana LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, et al, 2:22-148, 2023 WL

5669118, (W.D. La. July 26, 2023) citing Langley v. Allied Trust Ins. Co., 2022 WL

2818966 at *2 (W.D. La. July 19, 2022) (Cain, J.). See also Hunter v. GEICO Gen. Ins.

Co., 2018 WL 4352823, at *16-17 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018) eQHealth AdviseWell, Inc. v.

Homeland Ins. Co. of New York, 2022 WL 16827610 at *2 (W.D. La. Oct. 18, 2022)

(reserve information is relevant to an insured’s bad faith claim). As such, Church Mutual’s

request to exclude evidence of reserves and ROMs will be denied.

Testimony and evidence that communicates to the jury the policy limits of the policy

issued by Church Mutual Insurance Company

Church Mutual suggests that Federal Rule of Evidence 401 rejects the admission of

policy limits as irrelevant. Church Mutual cites Judge Brown as having excluded evidence

of policy limits. Logan v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 412257 (W.D. La. 01/24/2020).

The Court notes that in that opinion, there was no opposition and no analysis by Judge

Brown. The Court at this juncture is not persuaded that the policy limits are relevant; the

issues in this case are Plaintiff’s damages as a result of the hurricane, not the policy limits.

However, Church Mutual’s motion to exclude the policy limits will be deferred until the

trial and the Court will rule on the issue of policy limits should either party convince the

Court that this evidence is relevant.

Evidence premised on the “Golden Rule” or the “Conscience of the Community” with

respect to any damage issue

Church Mutual argues that any mention or arguments that would request a jury to

place themselves in the Plaintiff’s position when considering damages would potentially

cause a jury to decide damages based on emotion rather than relying on evidence presented

at trial, citing Stokes v. Delcambre, 710 F.2d 1120, 1128 (5th Cir. 1983). TPCD contends that

this type of evidence is admissible if to determine the reasonableness of the parties’ actions.

Stokes, 710 F.2d at 1128.

However, Church Mutual expressly limited its request to exclude “when considering

damages.”2 The Court agrees with Church Mutual that this type of evidence is

inappropriate when considering damages. The Court will grant Church Mutual’s request to

exclude this evidence when considering damages.

Jury verdicts, judgments, and awards rendered in other cases

Church Mutual argues that jury verdicts, judgments and awards rendered in other

cases is irrelevant to this matter and should be excluded. TPCD informs the Court that it

does not intend to introduce any evidence of this type. Be that as it may, the Court finds

that judgments and awards rendered in other cases is irrelevant and thus Church Mutual’s

request for exclusion will be granted.

Consequential damages such as mental anguish, loss of enjoyment or inconvenience of

Plaintiff, its clergy, the school, employees, or its members

Church Mutual moves to exclude any evidence of mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

or inconvenience of Plaintiff, its clergy, the school, employees, or its members because

TPCD is a nonprofit religious corporation that is incapable of experiencing human

emotions citing Frank C. Minvielle, LLC v. IMC Global Opers. Inc., 2022 WL 2398992,

at *2 (W.D. La. July 1, 2022). Church Mutual argues that to the extent that such evidence

may have some relevance, the limited probative value of this evidence is substantially

outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing or misleading the jury and a waste of

time.

2 Doc. 151-1, p.7.

The Court will not exclude any evidence that supports Plaintiff’s bad faith claim.

However, the Court finds that it is premature to rule on this issue without the context in

which the evidence will be offered. As such, the motion will be denied and deferred until

the trial of this matter.

Any reference to punitive damages

Church Mutual next asks that the Court forbid any evidence, argument or reference

asking that the jury “awarding punitive damages to punish” Church Mutual. Here, TPCD

is seeking damages under two Louisiana statutes that permit punitive damages based on an

insurer’s bad faith conduct. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in this regard.

Any evidence of the financial condition, net worth, wealth, overall profits, income, or assets

of Church Mutual

Church Mutual argues that this type of evidence or argument should be excluded as

irrelevant and/or its limited probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice, undue delay, confusion of the issues, and that it would mislead the jury

or is a waste of time. Church Mutual requests that the Court exclude this evidence pursuant

to Rule 401 or alternatively Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

TPCD does not oppose Church Mutual’s motion in this regard. The Court will grant

Church Mutual’s motion as to this type of evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained herein,

IT IS ORDERED that Church Mutual’s Omnibus Motion Jn Limine (Doc. 151) is

GRANTED to the extent that the following evidence, mention, or argument will be

excluded at the trial of this matter:

e Jury verdicts, judgments, and awards rendered in other cases

e Any evidence of the financial condition, net worth, wealth, overall profits,

income, or assets of Church Mutual

e Evidence premised on the “Golden Rule” or the “Conscience of the

Community” with respect to any damage issue

IT IS ORDERED that Church Mutual’s Motion is DENIED as to:

e evidence of reserves and ROMs

e evidence of punitive damages

IT IS ORDERED that Church Mutual’s Motion is DENIED and

DEFERRED until the trial of this matter as stated herein with regard to:

e Testimony and evidence that communicates to the jury the policy limits

of the policy issued by Church Mutual

e Consequential damages such as mental anguish, loss of enjoyment or

inconvenience of Plaintiff, its clergy, the school, employees, or its

members

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers on this 4th day of ry, 2026.

JAMES D. CAIN, JR. .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7