Millennium Partners, L.P. v. Colmar Storage, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007 · Evidence

494 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2007)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencesubsequent remedial measuresRule 407non-defendant repairsbailmentwarehouseman dutyreasonable careRule 16(b)

Facts

Colmar stored coffee for Millennium, AIG, and One Beacon's insured in a Miami warehouse located in a low-lying area prone to flooding. The warehouse included subterranean truck wells constructed without a county permit, and DERM had refused a permit because the wells lacked adequate pumps and drains. After heavy rains in October 2000, the warehouse flooded and water damaged stored coffee; Colmar had not set up a provisional pump despite learning heavy rains were expected. At trial, evidence also showed a later tenant required installation of catch basins, pumps, and drains in the truck wells after Colmar vacated.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying Colmar leave to amend to add an anti-subrogation defense, denying judgment as a matter of law on the bailment claims, admitting evidence about the permit denial and later repairs by a non-defendant, altering the damages result through additurs and a new trial, and awarding prejudgment interest from the insureds' date of loss.

Rule

After a scheduling-order deadline passes, a party must show good cause under Rule 16(b) before amendment under Rule 15(a) will be allowed; failure to investigate a potential defense does not constitute good cause. Under Florida bailment law, a plaintiff makes a prima facie case by showing delivery of property to the bailee in good condition and damage while in the bailee's care, and a warehouseman is liable for loss caused by failure to exercise the care a reasonably careful person would exercise under like circumstances. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a non-defendant is not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 407. Under Florida law, where damages are liquidated, prejudgment interest is recoverable from the date of loss, and an insurer-subrogee may recover that interest from the insured's date of loss.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Field sued Harborline Cold Storage, LLC in federal court in Tampa after produce stored at Harborline's warehouse was ruined during a flood. Six months after Harborline moved out, a new tenant required the landlord to install sump pumps and trench drains in the loading bays, and Nora offers that evidence to show Harborline had failed to use reasonable care.

Harborline objects under Federal Rule of Evidence 407. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that Rule 407 does not exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by a non-defendant. The majority held that repairs made by a later tenant were not barred because the defendant did not voluntarily participate in them. Thus, if the new tenant required the landlord to make the changes after Harborline left, Rule 407 does not require exclusion.