## Facts

- Mid-Plains Corporation operated an air courier business insured under a Firemen’s Fund liability policy containing a fellow-employee exclusion for bodily injury to a fellow employee arising out of and in the course of employment.
- On September 11, 1989, a Mid-Plains aircraft crashed en route from Kansas City, Missouri, to Springdale, Arkansas, killing the pilot (a Mid-Plains employee) and passenger Charles Benedict.
- Benedict had performed errands and “odd jobs” for Mid-Plains and reported to Michael Thien, Mid-Plains’s director of operations.
- Benedict’s survivors brought a Missouri wrongful-death action against Thien and the pilot’s representative; Mid-Plains was dismissed from that suit.
- Firemen’s Fund denied coverage for Thien and the pilot’s representative, asserting the fellow-employee exclusion applied because Benedict was a Mid-Plains employee acting within the course of employment during the flight.
- Firemen’s Fund filed a federal declaratory-judgment action seeking a declaration of no coverage; after an earlier appeal required a trial due to disputed facts, a jury on remand found for Firemen’s Fund.
- Benedict’s survivors appealed, challenging four evidentiary rulings made during the coverage trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding a pilot-witness’s opinion that Benedict was a “passenger in the ordinary sense.”
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence about Benedict’s work relationship with Mid-Plains (including duties and supervision) relevant to employee status.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in limiting evidence about a religious group associated with Thien and certain witnesses, while allowing limited affiliation evidence to show possible bias.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of payments related to Benedict’s death that allegedly suggested employee status and unfairly prejudiced the jury.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Firemen’s Fund.
- The court held none of the challenged evidentiary rulings constituted an abuse of discretion.
- The court further held that, in any event, the rulings did not prejudice appellants’ substantial rights or warrant a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; reversal requires prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- A trial court may exclude opinion testimony that effectively states a conclusion on the central factual issue for the jury when the matter can be presented through underlying facts.
- Evidence tending to prove or disprove employment status and scope of employment is relevant in litigation applying a fellow-employee exclusion; Rule 403 permits exclusion only when unfair prejudice or confusion substantially outweighs probative value.
- Bias evidence may be admitted in limited form (e.g., affiliation or relationship) while excluding more detailed religious-doctrine evidence to reduce confusion and unfair prejudice.
- Potentially prejudicial evidence tied to contested issues (including payment-related evidence) may be admitted when relevant and not unfairly misleading in context, particularly where the opposing party can address it through examination and counterproof.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a jury verdict declaring no coverage under a fellow-employee exclusion, concluding the district court acted within its discretion in the trial’s evidentiary rulings and that any challenged rulings did not materially affect the verdict.


Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995)