Progressive denied their claim, and the Rodkeys sued.

In advance of the pretrial conference, Progressive filed motions in limine to preclude:

(1) Evidence of insurance policy premiums paid by the Rodkeys;

(2) Evidence of the uninsured motorist benefits available under the policy; and

(3) Evidence of Ms. Rodkey's unpaid excess medical bills.

The District Court's Decision

The district court denied Progressive's motions.

In its decision, the district court first found that the evidence of the insurance policy premiums and uninsured motorist benefits was relevant.

It explained that Count 1 of the Rodkeys' complaint alleged a breach of contract, and that the “essential terms of the insurance contract” included the premiums that the Rodkeys had paid to receive coverage and the extent of that coverage.

The district court acknowledged that Progressive said that it would admit at trial that the insurance policy was in effect at the time of the accident, the Rodkeys were insured under the policy, and the policy provided uninsured motorist coverage, and that Progressive argued that these admissions would satisfy the first element of a breach of contract claim: the existence of a contract, including its essential terms.

The district court reasoned that before the jury could determine damages, it had to determine the second element of a breach of contract claim: a breach of the contract. In the district court's view, the jury could not be expected to do so to the best of its ability without knowing the essential terms of the contract at issue, including the consideration exchanged. It said that the policy's essential terms and the consideration exchanged included “the premiums paid and the coverage [the Rodkeys] bargained for by paying those premiums.” The district court added:

Just as in any other breach of contract action, these terms and the consideration exchanged are relevant. This case is not different simply because it is an action upon an insurance contract.

The district court then rejected Progressive's contention that, even if the insurance information was relevant, it still had to be precluded from trial because it was “confusing and unfairly prejudicial.”

According to the district court, the evidence was “neither confusing nor unfairly prejudicial.” Indeed, it said, the amount of premiums the Rodkeys had paid and the amount of uninsured motorist benefits available “should assist the jury in understanding and evaluating all elements of this breach of contract case.” The district court added that there was “no binding authority” to support Progressive's assertion that the amount of premiums the Rodkeys had paid and the amount of uninsured motorist benefits available were “confusing or unfairly prejudicial.”

Finally, the district court rejected Progressive's motion to preclude evidence of Ms. Rodkey's unpaid excess medical bills on the ground that they had been or could have been satisfied by private health insurance.

The district court pointed out that Ms. Rodkey asserted that her claimed medical bills were out-of-pocket expenses for co-pays and deductibles that were part of the coverage agreement between her and her health insurance carriers. Thus, the district court said, these expenses were neither “payable” nor “paid” by the health insurance carriers but either were paid by Ms. Rodky out-of-pocket or remained unpaid.

Mr. Rodkey had to prove these damages at the time of trial, the district court said, concluding that evidence of her unpaid excess medical bills was “admissible.”

The case is Rodkey v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. 3:16cv454 (M.D. Penn. Dec. 8, 2016).