Writ application denied.
I agree with the majoritys denial of the writ application filed by defendant Texas Brine Company, LLC. However, I write separately to note that while the reasoning utilized by Judge Welch in his dissent is persuasive, in my view, any potential prejudice in allowing evidence concerning the prior amounts paid under the 2012 policies by Zurich American Insurance Company can be cured by a properly explicit jury instruction. See Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 07-2110, p. 5-6 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 798, 804 (“The trial court is responsible for reducing the possibility of confusing the jury and may exercise the right to decide what law is applicable and what law the trial court deems appropriate.”). Notwithstanding that the evidence concerning payments under the 2012 policies may be distinguishable from pre-2012 activity, that information may be useful in considering the overall bad faith allegations as set forth by Texas Brine. Moreover, it is well established that a district court is afforded broad discretion in its consideration of evidentiary matters, including motions in limine. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. United States Steel Corporation, 19-1730 (La. 1/28/20), 288 So.3d 120, 121, citing Heller v. Nobel Insurance Group, 00-0261 (La. 2/2/00), 753 So.2d 841. Consequently, I join the majority in its writ denial.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., recused.