Utah Supreme Court
Can parties appeal evidentiary rulings after stipulating to them at trial? Tschaggeny v. Milbank Explained
Summary
Julie Tschaggeny sued Milbank Insurance Company under her uninsured motorist policy after an automobile accident. The trial court granted Milbank’s motion in limine excluding written-off medical bills, denied Tschaggeny’s untimely motion to reconsider, and awarded prejudgment interest only until Milbank’s pretrial payment. Tschaggeny appealed the exclusion of medical bills, prejudgment interest calculation, and denial of a new trial.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Julie Tschaggeny was injured in an automobile accident and submitted a claim to Milbank Insurance Company under her uninsured motorist policy. When Milbank denied coverage, Tschaggeny sued for benefits. Due to contractual arrangements between her health insurer and medical providers, a portion of her medical expenses were written off. Milbank filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of these written-off amounts. Although Tschaggeny’s counsel initially opposed the motion, he later stipulated that “the way this has been presented by the defense makes sense and probably does not need an opposition.” The trial court granted the motion.
Key Legal Issues
On the morning of trial, Tschaggeny filed an untimely motion to reconsider, arguing for the first time that excluding the medical bill write-offs violated the collateral source rule. The trial court denied the motion as untimely but offered to consider the merits if Tschaggeny would move for a continuance. Tschaggeny declined. She also challenged the trial court’s calculation of prejudgment interest under Utah Code section 78-27-44 and sought a new trial for excluded evidence and replacement services.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied the invited error doctrine, holding that Tschaggeny could not challenge the motion in limine ruling because her counsel clearly stipulated to granting the motion. Regarding the motion to reconsider, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying it as untimely, noting that Tschaggeny filed it just minutes before trial after waiting over seven months. Critically, the court held that Tschaggeny failed to preserve the issue for appeal by declining the trial court’s invitation to seek a continuance, which would have allowed meaningful consideration of the merits.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of timely and strategic litigation choices. Practitioners cannot stipulate to adverse rulings at trial and then challenge them on appeal. The preservation doctrine requires giving trial courts meaningful opportunities to address claimed errors. When courts offer procedural options like continuances, declining those options may constitute waiver of appellate review rights, even on issues of first impression.
Case Details
Case Name
Tschaggeny v. Milbank
Citation
2007 UT 37
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050744
Date Decided
April 27, 2007
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A party cannot appeal exclusion of evidence when counsel invited the error by stipulating to the motion in limine, and failure to seek a continuance when offered by the trial court waives preservation of the issue for appeal.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s denial of motion to reconsider; sufficiency of evidence challenges require marshaling evidence in support of jury verdict
Practice Tip
When facing an adverse motion in limine, file timely opposition rather than stipulating at the hearing, as stipulation constitutes invited error that cannot be challenged on appeal.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.