PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





William Jarrell, Witness for the State


THE COURT: The State call its first witness, please.


MR. PANOSH: Mr. Jarrell, please come up. If you'll go to the bailiff, he'll tell you where to sit. WILLIAM JARRELL, being first duly sworn, testified as follows during DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Would you state your name, sir.

A    William Jarrell.

Q    Mr. Jarrell, you live in Winston-Salem; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what is your occupation?

A    I'm an agent for Life of Georgia Insurance Company.

Q    And how long have you been an agent with Life of Georgia?

A    15 years.

Q    18, you say?

A    15.

Q    15?

A    (The witness nodded his head up and down.)

Q    In the course of your duties, did there come a time when you met Patricia Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you met Patricia.

A    She had called our office. She was -- her -- she already had insurance with us, with Life of Georgia, and she called our office and talked to her agent at that time, and


said that she wanted to change the beneficiary on her insurance, and also, to take out some more insurance. And so, the agent set up an appointment with Patricia, and -­but did not keep that appointment. She called her back a few days later and scheduled another appointment, and she was two hours late or so for that.

So, Patricia said, "I don't have time to talk with you. I don't want to do business with you. You can't keep your appointments." And the next morning, she called our district office and talked to our district manager. And our district manager came back and talked with me and asked me would I handle that. I said, "Certainly."

And so, I called Patricia. I made an appointment and went to the appointment, and changed the beneficiary on a policy that her mother had taken out about 1990, I believe. And it was with Southland Life Insurance Company, which is a company that we bought. And so, I did that form. And then she wanted to take out $25,000 more of insurance. So, I filed -- I filled out that application. She signed it. And that's how I met her.

Q    Where was it that you spoke to her?

A    At her office at Cinnamon Ridge Apartments.

Q    Do you remember the date?

A    It was in March of '95.

Q    And you indicated that she had an existing policy that


she changed the beneficiary. Do you know the amount of that existing policy?

A    Yes, sir. $25,000.

Q    And you indicated the beneficiary was her mother, and she changed it to whom?

A    To Ted.

Q    And she applied for a second policy through you; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

MR. LLOYD: Object to the form, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    This second policy, would you state the amount, please.

A    $25,000.

Q    And the beneficiary?

A    Theodore Kimble, her husband.

Q    Now, at that time, did you go into some discussion with-- her about her needs for insurance?

A    Actually, I talked with her about -- I asked her how much -- I asked her first what her husband did, and she told me.

MR. LLOYD: Well --

A    And I said, "How much --"

MR. LLOYD: -- objection to what she told him, Your Honor.

A    She told me that --


THE COURT: Sustained.

A    -- he owned -‑

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

Q    Based upon your interview with her, did you then assist her in applying for a -- that second $25,000 policy?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And was this a typical conversation that an insurance agent has -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- with a prospective candidate?

A    Yes, sir. We -‑

Q    And in doing that, did you do an analysis of the needs

and make a recommendation?

A    I did not do any -‑

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to leading -‑

A    -- needs analysis.

MR. LLOYD: -- Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    I did not do a needs analysis. We do offer that. And I did not ask her about that.

Q    In any event, you did issue a -- that second policy sometime in March of '95; is that right?

A    I believe that policy was issued in April.

Q    April the 1st?


A    I don't remember what date. But that's when -- I delivered it to her in April, to her office in Cinnamon Ridge.

Q    Did there come a time when you had contact with Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    When was that?

A    That was in September of '95, the same year.

Q    Could you describe how that came about.

A    When I delivered the policy to Patricia, the policy that she took out, the second policy, she asked me about -­she -- I had mentioned to her -- I had questioned her about Ted's insurance, and she was to have the policy there, so that I could look at it, to see what I thought of it. But she said it was in a lock box.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to what she said, Your Honor.

A    But it was -‑

THE COURT: Sustained.

A    -- not available. So, she said, "But, I --"

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor.

A     There was -‑

THE COURT: Sustained.

A    There was -‑

Q    As a result of that conversation, did you expect a call


from Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes, sir, because the question came up about dental insurance, which I said, "Yes, we have." And I left a brochure and was to hear later from them.

The -- sometime in September, I got a call one morning, and this gentleman said, "Mr. Jarrell, is this --" says, "This is Ted Kimble."

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    He identified himself to me as Patricia's husband, and asked me if -- about the dental insurance. I made an appointment, went to the appointment a couple of days later, I think it was. And he took the -- he took a dental policy. Patricia wanted a dental policy. And I questioned whether I should go to her office at Cinnamon Ridge. I was told that she would be there in a few minutes.

So, in a few minutes, she came and spoke to me. She was a very friendly person. And signed the application. Ted paid me the premium, and I left.

Q    You conducted this interview where?

A    In -- at Lyles, in the office there at Lyles lumber company.

Q    And you sold dental insurance for both of them; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.


Q    Did you have subsequent contact with Theodore Kimble? A Yes, sir. I had a message when I got home that Mr. Kimble had called me, and wanted me to call him if I got in before 5:30. But it was after 5:30 when I got home. But I called him the next morning. He was interested in buying life insurance. I was asked, "How much would $300,000 --"

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained at this point.

Q    This is a conversation you had with Theodore Kimble; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And this was on the telephone?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And as a result of your conversation with Theodore Kimble, did you set up an appointment?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And where was that appointment?

A    The appointment was maybe the next day. I think it was the next day.

Q    Again, was this at Lyles?

A    Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I offered to come to their home, and I was told that it would be better to do -­MR. LLOYD: Well, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    As a result of the conversation you had with Theodore


Kimble, you did not go to their home, you went to Lyles; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And when you went to Lyles, who did you meet with?

A    Ted Kimble.

Q    And what was discussed?

A    Life insurance for Patricia Kimble first, in the amount of $300,000.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. This is just a clever way of getting around hearsay and


THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    What was the next thing that was discussed?

A    The next thing was $200,000.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. It's the same thing over and over again.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd like to be heard briefly.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, step in the jury room a moment, please.

(The jury left the courtroom at 3:40 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we would submit that these are hearsay statements of Ted Kimble that fall under


803(1), present sense impression. These are statements describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. These are statements made to the life insurance agent, while he is discussing the policy and statements that -- in response to what Mr. Jarrell said to him.

In addition to that, Your Honor, this falls under the exception of hearsay statements by a co-conspirator. We've established prima facie evidence, through the testimony of Mitch Whidden, that there was a conspiracy, that the conspiracy was between Ted and Ronnie, and the conspiracy was to get money. And this is statements of Ted Kimble in the course of that conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy, in an attempt to set up the insurance money, which was going to be obtained as a result of her death.

You have to bear in mind, Your Honor, that this is on September the 12th through the 14th of '95, just a few weeks before she was killed.

THE COURT: Well, is Ted Kimble here, present?

MR. PANOSH: He is here, but whether or not he is available -‑

Is he in the courthouse?

THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.


MR. PANOSH: I believe he is. But whether or not he is available is not a requirement to the hearsay exception. If you look at Rule 801, the exception to the hearsay for conspirators, co-conspirators, falls under 801(D) and 801-- excuse me (E), and it has nothing to do whether he is available or not available.

THE COURT: Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to be heard? MR. LLOYD: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

First of all, Your Honor, if what Mr. Panosh says, in terms of present sense impression exception, is correct, that -- you could apply that to anything. What that exception talks about is, if you describe, for example, a wreck, just after it's happened, you are describing an event, when you have no motivation to lie. And that doesn't apply to this situation at all. It simply doesn't apply, Your Honor. I think -- and I'm not going to waste a bunch of time on that. I think it's obvious to everyone that it doesn't. Mr. Panosh is just grasping at straws, as far as that's concerned.

MR. PANOSH: Well, we would object, please.

MR. LLOYD: Well, I apologize for the reference to that. I just don't think it applies, Your Honor.

Insofar as the co-conspirator exception goes, first of all, Your Honor, as far as the jury is concerned, they've heard no evidence from Mitch Whidden. The


conspiracy is not before the jury in this case. The evidence is not here in this situation.

Secondly, even assuming that if you -- if you put any validity in that, what Mr. Jarrell has testified to is that the first thing that -- the first contact he had with Ted Kimble was when Ted Kimble ordered dental insurance for both himself and his wife. Now -- and according to the testimony here, that was just a very short period of time before this. We've heard no evidence, at least not that's before the jury, Your Honor, that establishes any sort of conspiracy. You know, I guess Mr. Panosh is entitled to put on -- of course, he is entitled, if he has that evidence, to put it on later. I think at the very least -‑

THE COURT: Of course, we're taking this witness out of sequence, due to the fact that he has a --

MR. LLOYD: Well, I understand that, Your Honor. And --

THE COURT: With both the consent of -‑

MR. LLOYD: -- I think there's a latitude -‑

THE COURT: -- the State and the defense.

MR. LLOYD: I guess, is Your Honor giving some indication that if Mr. Panosh can prove up the conspiracy at some later point, then you would be inclined to admit these statements as the statements of a co-conspirator? If that's the case, if Your Honor is intending to do that, then I


would request that you instructed the jury that these -- at this point, there's been no evidence of a conspiracy. And as far as the jury is concerned, I think even Mr. Panosh would have to concede that. And therefore, they are to consider these statements only in the event that Mr. Panosh proves to them beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy exists at some later time.

My problem with that, Judge Cornelius, is, we're asking the jury to do a lot of mental gymnastics when we ask them to do something like that, and I just don't see how they can do it. I don't see how they can sort of compartmentalize in their minds, "Well, we've got to keep this stuff separate, until we hear later on some sort of proof." And I think at this point, it's mere conjecture that Mr. Panosh is going to establish some sort of proof. And we would ask that these statements of Ted Kimble not come in. I mean, he's certainly entitled to testify to the events surrounding the insurance, but to wholesale let in these statements is a whole different issue.

Finally -- and I'll try to make this brief, Judge Cornelius -- we still have the problem of confrontation. We still -- we don't get to cross-examine anybody about these statements that Ted Kimble made. He's not here. And I realize, I think the first thing out of Mr. Panosh's mouth is going to be that, well, you don't have a confrontation


problem if they're basically rooted in some firmly-rooted hearsay exception. I just question, based on the evidence that we have before this jury now, whether or not that's the case, Your Honor. And I think quite simply at this point, they're not admissible.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh -‑

MR. LLOYD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- do you wish to be heard?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, it is not for the jury to determine whether there's been a prima facie case of conspiracy. It's for Your Honor to determine. Your Honor has heard that evidence. This is a ruling made by the Court, not by the jury. And if it becomes necessary, we have the transcript. We can pass that to the jury, and they can read it, if Your Honor feels that's necessary. But I think it's very clear that it is for Your Honor to make the-ruling and determine whether or not there has been a prima facie case and we've made it.

His statements about present sense impression are not the way I understand the law. What he's referring to is an excited utterance. It's true it needs a startling event for an excited utterance exception. But this is present sense impression. He is discussing an insurance policy with this man, and based upon his present sense impressions of that conversation, he is making statements. There is


absolutely no motivation here for Ted Kimble to deceive this man or to say anything but the truth. He's talking about taking a life insurance policy on himself, a dental policy on himself, a dental policy on his wife, and a dental policy -- and a life insurance policy on his wife. And we just feel that it's clearly part of the conspiracy and it also falls within the present sense impression.

THE COURT: Objection's overruled. The Court will allow in the hearsay exception to a conspiracy.

Bring them back.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 3:49 p.m.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, if you'd just note my objection to it -‑

THE COURT: Okay. Noted.

MR. LLOYD: -- a continued line. Thank you, Your Honor.


Q    Would you describe your conversation with Theodore Kimble in reference to the life insurance that he discussed with you.

A    Yes, sir. He was interested in taking out a policy on Patricia and also himself. First one he asked me about was one on Patricia. And he first asked for 300 -- about $300,000. I ran it on the computer, sitting in front of


him, and told him what -- he was interested in the price, and I let him know what the price is. I was told then by him to see what $200,000 would cost. That was the amount that he settled on.

On himself, he said that -- well, I was told that he wanted a $25,000 policy, because he owed that to his father, on the purchase of that lumber company, that Lyles lumber company. And he was interested in his father being paid back, should something happen to Ted. I ran that on the computer and told him what that would be. And that was agreeable.

I was then asked, what would $150,000 of term insurance on him would run, on Ted. And I gave him that price. And that was agreeable.

So I wrote the policies up on Ted. And then I asked, "Should I go to Patricia's office at Cinnamon Ridge?" I was told, "No. She'll be here shortly." And that appointment was about -- I started that appointment about 4:00 in the afternoon, was interrupted several times with people coming in, I guess that worked for him, and he would pay them money and they would leave, so I assume that he worked for them (sic).

And so, it was about dusk dark and -- by that time, and so, I filled out the front portion on Patricia's policy, which was her name, her Social Security number, her date of


birth, which was all in my computer already, since she was a current client.

At one point, I was asked -- oh, also, he -- I talked with him, while we were waiting, about a cancer policy, and it was very reasonable, and it was a million dollar cancer policy. It was something like $15 to $20 a month. And he said, "I'll take that." And I had told him the benefits. And so, I filled out that application. And on that particular application, only one person has to sign of the couple. The insurance was on both of them, but only one has to sign that application.

And so, we set there and talked, and he said, "Do you have a brochure on that cancer policy?" And I said, "Yes. I'm sorry." I said, "I'll get one." So I went out to my car. And as I went out the door, Patricia was coming in, and spoke to me, "Hi, Mr. Jarrell." And I, of course, spoke back to her and went on to my car. And I've got a file in my trunk, where I keep brochures and forms, application forms. And so, it was dusk dark and I could hardly see in there, but I finally found that brochure. And as I closed the trunk and started around my car, I heard the door slam on that office, and Patricia came out and went right straight to her vehicle. And I hollered to her and said, "Patricia, you're not leaving, are you?" And she didn't recognize me, didn't say anything, didn't look at me, and


got in her vehicle and left.

So I walked in and asked Ted if she was coming back, and he said, "No." And I said, "I got to get her to sign the application, her life insurance application." And he pushed it over to me and he said, "She signed it." So, everything fit in my mind. And I said, "Well, there's some things I need to ask her," which were health questions, and I said -- but I just said, "There's some things I needed to ask her, but I'll take care of that."

And so, at that time, I said, "Now, you both have to have a blood profile, because of the amount of insurance." And I was told that she could not do that, because she fainted if she was stuck with a needle. I told him it would have to be done, that's a prerequisite, that's part of the application. I told Mr. Kimble that I would have it set up at Porta-Medic, that they would be prepared, should she faint while they're taking blood from her. And he agreed then.

He asked me about the $25,000 policy. He said, "Should --" "If something happens to me before I get the policy back, am I insured?" Well, on the -- on the application, on the conditional receipt, it states three criterias for when that policy is effective. And those are, that the person has qualified medically for that application, under the -­under the rules of the insurance company. And at that


amount, he needed no physical, no blood profile. And that money is placed at least for the first month. And that the application has been completed. And I said, I told Ted that "If that application is received by the home office, they have found you insurable, and something happens to you, then yes, it will pay off. If it is your death of natural causes, that they may require an autopsy," before making payment to his father.

So, we left the office that we were in and went to another little building there. And he walked behind, I think it was a big desk, and there was an area there that had marked off, and I asked -- he said, "Excuse the place." He said, "This is where Mom keeps her dog when she comes," or something. I don't know. And so, he pulls the drawer out of the desk, opens the drawer, and pulls out a handful of money and pays me in cash. And I give him a receipt, and I leave.

And that's my dealings with the insurance with him.

Q    On the next day, or thereafter, did you call Patricia in reference to those medical questions?

A    The next morning, I called Patricia, because the health questions had not been answered. I asked the health questions. And some are kind of personal. And when I finished, I was asked, "Why --"

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to what he was asked,


Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    I was asked, "Why do you need this information for a cancer insurance?" I said, "This is not on your cancer insurance. This is on your life insurance." She said, "How much life insurance?" I said, "200 --"

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    I said, "$200,000." She slammed the phone down.

Well, I didn't know what was going on, and so I thought, I'll call Ted. So I called Ted and was told -- and told what happened, and was told that she was mad at him for some reason. He didn't explain. And I said, "Is everything all right, Ted?" And I was told that it was.

I told him that the paramedic office, Porta-Medic, would be calling him, to set up the appointment for the blood profile on each one of them.

I notified Porta-Medic, and they told me -- and I requested that they notify me when that appointment would be, just to follow up. The manager there called me back later that day and told me that he had set up the

appointment. And I don't remember what day it was. And so, I had reiterated my statement to him that she fainted when she was stuck with a needle, and they needed to be prepared. I was concerned about that.


So, Monday night, my wife and I were watching television, and a report -- Oh, I'm sorry. That was later on. The night before the blood profile was -- appointment, about 9:30, I got a call from Ted Kimble and was told that they could not make that appointment the next day. And I stated that they needed to be contacted, the Porta-Medic needed to be contacted, and that appointment rescheduled.

When I got to my office the next morning, I called Porta-Medic myself, to see if he had done so, had rescheduled. And they told me that he had.

So, then, on a Monday night, after that, my wife and I were watching television news, and on a channel we were watching, there were no pictures, it was just stated that a Pleasant Garden resident, Pat Kimble, was burned in a -­found dead in a burned home. And -- but I just assumed that it was not her, because she did not like to be called Pat, is what she told me. So -‑

Q    You had a number of dealings with Patricia?

A    Sir?

Q    You had a number of dealings with Patricia?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what was her general demeanor?

A    She was a strong Christian girl.

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.


A    She had told me she loved the Lord. And -‑

Q    Was she -‑

A    And she was -- she was -- she was very business and -­you know. And her demeanor was fine. I mean, it -‑

Q    Based upon your prior contact with her on those other occasions, would you describe her slamming the phone down as being in character or out of character?

A    Oh, that was -‑

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to leading, Your Honor. Calls for a -‑

THE COURT: Sustained.

Don't answer, sir.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q    In the course of your dealings with her, your other conversations, did she ever exhibit any similar conduct, in slamming down the phone?

A    No, sir. I was quite shocked when that happened.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to what the witness was shocked about, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    Now, there came a time when you were notified that it was Patricia Kimble that was killed?

A    The next -- Let's see. On Monday night, we saw that, and I told my wife that I had written an application on a Patricia Kimble.


MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to what the witness told his wife.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Without going into that conversation -‑

A    Okay.

Q    -- did there come a time when you learned that she was killed?

A    Yes, sir. The next night.

Q    Okay.

A    And on the news, it showed her picture. And -‑

Q    All right. Without going into what was said on the news, did you have any subsequent contact with Ted Kimble? A Yes, sir. I believe it was the following morning. Well, actually, the following morning, as soon as I got to the office, I notified our legal department in Atlanta what was going on there, that the lady had been murdered. And I -- later on, I received a phone call from Mr. Kimble, and I -- because I didn't know what was going on. And so, I did not state that I knew anything at all, even that Patricia was murdered. And I was told that she was killed. And I said, "In an automobile accident?" And I was told, "No. Shot." I was also told that it was -- that they believed that she walked in on a burglar.

And so, I was asked if -- about the insurance on that policy, on that application that I had just written on her.


Q    Now, again, you're speaking to Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And what did he ask you?

A    He asked me if the 200-- said, "Well, the insurance will pay off, won't it?" And I said, "Did you have the blood -- Did you all have the blood profile done?" I was told, "No." I said, "It will not pay off, because that's part of the application."

And he stated that, "You told me that if my -- if something happened to me, that my father would get that $25,000." I said, "That's true." But that policy did not require a blood profile, and that application was complete. There was no question asked at the purchase of that insurance about her policy paying off in that same circumstance -- under the same circumstances. So I told him, "No."

And then I was -- he said he was -- he seemed -- well, he seemed concerned about that. And I -- he said, "Well, now, the policies that she's got on her, the other two policies, are double indemnity policies, and it'll pay double, won't it?" And I said, "Ted, I'm going to get the home office phone number for you, and you need to call and find out." Because at that point, I was getting a little afraid. And so, I gave him that phone number.

And -- but he still called me back several times, and I


-- and he stated, when could he get the money, and I was told -- I told him, when he got the death certificate, to call me, and that I would come over to his office and file the claim, which I did when he called me back, which was probably two weeks later.

Q    So, two weeks later approximately, you filed the claim in reference to the -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- $25,000?

A    When I went over to -- when I went to his office, and I asked him how things were going. And he said, "The police are bothering me." And so, he said -- I said, "Oh, really?" And -- because Ted was a -- was a -- is a likable -- was a likable guy. I mean, I -- the first time I met him, you know, the gentleman seemed fine to me.

And then, I asked him how things were going. He told me the police were giving him a tough time. And so -- but I saw that he had -- I saw a motorcycle over there, and I said, "Is that your motorcycle?" And was told, yes, that it is. And gosh, I think I'll get in the lumber business, because he had a Grand -‑

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to whether he's in the right business -‑

A    -- Cherokee.

MR. LLOYD: -- or the wrong business, Your Honor.


THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    All right. During that conversation, did you file a claim on the two insurance policies -‑

A    Yes, sir, I did.

Q    -- that were in effect -‑

A    I sent --

Q    -- on Patricia?

A    -- those to Atlanta. And -- but the rules and regulations of the insurance industry is that they do not pay claims to a beneficiary that is a suspect. And so, that claim's never been paid.

Q    Did you have further contact with him?

A    Yes, sir. He called me several times, concerning payment of the two -- the first two policies that she had.

And then, I received phone calls from an attorney, don't remember his name, but he sent me a booklet, a letter, and I read the first -- part of the first page, and then turned around and sent it to our legal office in Atlanta. And it was stating that who the beneficiary was that should be paid, and it should pay double, because it was double indemnity.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection to what the letter stated, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LLOYD: Ask for an instruction.


THE COURT: Members of the jury, disregard the last response by the witness, as to what any letter may have said.

(Mr. Panosh showed exhibits to Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hatfield.)

MR. PANOSH: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

Q    I show you now what's been marked for identification as State's Exhibit Number 1. Do you recognize that, sir?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And who is that?

A    That's Patricia Kimble.

Q    And I'm going to show you now a series of documents which have been marked as State's Exhibit Number 2. Do you know what State's Exhibit Number 2 is? And just identify it for the record, please. Is this the application for insurance?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    Okay. And that's a two-‑

A    On Patricia Kimble, yes.

Q    Okay. And 2-A is actually the application form; is that correct?

A    That's correct.

Q    2-B, what is that, sir?

A    That is the -‑

Q    Is that --


A    -- agreement.

Q    -- Page 4 of the form?

A    That's Page 4. That's the agreement and authorization. By Patricia signing that, or the insured signing that, it gives you the authorization to do a medical check and credit check and anything.

Q    And submit the application?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And 2-C?

A    2-C is the accelerated benefit, which, this was given to Ted, to take to Patricia to sign and mail to me, which I did receive in the mail.

Q    Okay. And 2-D?

A    They are receipts for cash received on payment of premium.

Q    Okay. And this is cash from Theodore Kimble to you, as representative of your company?

A    Life of Georgia, yes, sir.

Q    Okay. And 2-E?

A    I don't know what that is.

Q    All right.

A    I really don't. That's -- that comes from the home office, and that's the codings -‑

Q    All right.

A    -- that they give when they're --


 Q    These exhibits, 2-E, 2-F, 2-G and 2-H, you don't recognize? These are home office documents?

A    Okay. It's saying -- well, what it's saying here, this is home office documents. I never see these.

Q    Okay.

A    And this is just saying -‑

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor, if he's

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LLOYD: -- never seen them.

MR. PANOSH: I'm not going to submit them, if he doesn't recognize them.

A    I don't recognize them.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, we'd seek to introduce into evidence State's Exhibit Number 1, State's 2, which consists of 2-A, B, C and D. Do you need to see them before

THE COURT: The Court'll allow the introduction of State's Exhibits -‑

MR. LLOYD: We would object, on grounds previously raised, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. The Court will allow the introduction of State's Exhibits 1, 2, 2-A, B, C and D.

Q    Now, drawing your attention to State's Exhibit 2-A, do you recognize the handwriting on Page 1 --


A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- which is 2-A?

A    That's my handwriting.

Q       Okay. And is this the application for the $200,000 insurance that you've previously made reference to? A    Yes, sir.

Q    And is this the information that you said you took off your computer?

A    From here (Indicated) and the phone number and the address. And the only thing I did not take off of the computer was her height and weight.

Q    All right. And then drawing your attention to Page 2, which is State's Exhibit 2-A, Page 2, what is that, sir?

A    Okay. It states at the top what insurance she has currently in force. And then, it asks questions that are pertinent to authorizing issuance of a policy. It's health questions, and also driving record.

Q    Okay. Are these the health questions that you went over with Patricia on the phone?

A    Yes, I did. And she told me that she had, in 3 of '95, that she went to her Dr. Juan -‑

Q    Fernandez.

A    -- Fernandez and -- for an exam, and birth control pills.

Okay. And 2-B, this is the place where the insured


signs; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir, it is.

Q    And is this the document that you left with Ted Kimble when you went to your car to get that brochure?

A    All of these sheets are in one form. And -- but that was turned out, when I came back in. And I told him, "I've got to get her to sign that." And so, I went out to my car to get the brochure, I came back, and I said -- asked if she was coming back, and was told she was not. And I said, "I've got to get her to sign the application." He said, "Here. It's signed."

Q    All right.

A    She signed it.

Q    All of the handwriting on these forms is your handwriting, except for the signature of Patricia Kimble?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Okay. And the same on -‑

A    Same on -­Q-- 2-C?

A    -- accelerated benefit, yes, sir.

Q    And 2-D, the receipts, that's all in your handwriting; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, as you said, sir, the originals are in a packet form; is that correct?



A    That -- the application comes in a form that you can tear off the edge and -- because we tear it off, it's tear off -- it's torn off and turned in to our office in Winston-Salem, where that it is checked, to make sure everything is entered in there that should be. And then it's sent to the home office.

Q    And the home office is in Atlanta, Georgia; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And these are copies that were obtained through you from the home office; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, there were other applications, as you've previously stated, for the other policies, is that right, cancer and dental?

A    Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the policy on Mr. Kimble was issued. He did go have his blood profile.

Q    Excuse me?

A    He went at a later date and had his blood profile. And that was, of course, forwarded on to our home office, where they did a blood check. And that policy was approved, along with the $25,000 policy. But those policies are no longer in effect.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach?

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. None of


this is responsive to the question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You may approach.

Q    Drawing your attention then to State's Exhibit 2, on the back page, and you've made reference to another policy there?

A    Yes, sir. That's cancer, the cancer policy.

Q    Okay. And in -‑

A    The question in that -- on that line is, are there any other applications on this individual being applied for, any other insurance. And I answered that by stating that it was a cancer policy and gave the application number.

Q    And again, that's in your handwriting?

A    Yes, sir.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to cross-examine him?

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Your Honor.


Q    Mr. Jarrell, have you ever seen this man over here, right here? (Indicated.)

A    Never before.

Q     So, you've never had any dealings with Ronnie Kimble, have you?

A    No, sir.


Q    Don't even know who he is?

A    No, sir. I didn't even know Ted had a brother.

Q    Now, the first person in the Kimble household to contact you was Patricia Kimble; is that right?

A    Yes, sir. That was in March of '95.

Q    All right. And this was after Patricia became upset with the first agent who dealt with her; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right.

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And so, basically, Mr. Jarrell, you were sort of sent out to smooth things over and get things going on an even keel -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- at that point? And when you talked to her about that, she was pretty upset about that, wasn't she?

A    In fact, it did not even come up.

Q    But as you understood it, before you went out there, that she was -‑

A    I understood from that my district manager, that she did not want to do business with that young lady.

Q    And she had been upset enough to call on your district manager and specifically request that another agent handle her insurance needs; is that right?

A    Quite honestly, I don't know whether she requested


another agent or not. I don't know what their conversation was, between my district manager and Mrs. Kimble.

Q    But you do know that she called your district manager?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And as a result of that conversation, you were sent out to deal with -‑

A    Well, what he did, he asked me to make contact with her.

Q    All right.

A    Which I did.

Q    And her first policy had been issued through your company? She had a then existing policy; is that right? A   Yes, sir.

Q    All right.

A    It was issued with Southland Life.

Q    All right. And which -- and your company bought out

A    Bought out, yes.

Q    -- South-- So you inherited that policy?

A    That's right.

Q    All right. And when she talked to you at that time, and I believe you indicated that was in -- was that in -­A     March.

Q    -- March? She indicated to you at that time that she wanted to purchase additional insurance?

A    Yes, sir.


Q    On top of what she already had?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Now, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Jarrell, you wrote up the new policy, according to -‑

A    I wrote up the application.

Q    The application?

A    (The witness nodded his head up and down.)

Q    You explained to her, as you do all your clients, that that was an application -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- is that right? All right. But you wrote that up and submitted that on her behalf?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right. And that was in addition to the insurance that she already had?

A    Yes.

Q    And you said at that time, you mentioned to her that you had a dental plan; is that correct?

A    Not at that time. I think -- I think I mentioned that to her when I delivered that policy.

Q    Okay. But shortly thereafter, you mentioned the next contact -‑

A    The next month -‑

Q    -- you had -‑

A    -- yes, sir.


Q    -- with her? You mentioned about the dental plan? A Yes, sir. Well, she asked me about it.

Q    All right. And after that, you got a call from Ted Kimble concerning the dental policy?

A    Several months later. It was in September.

All right. And you went and talked to Ted Kimble about

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- the dental plan? And he purchased the dental plan?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And got it for both himself and Patricia at that time?

A    That's right.

Q    All right. Do you know what the premiums were on that dental plan?

A    You know, I don't remember whether he paid annual or not. I don't believe he did. It ran about 28 or 29 dollars a month apiece.

Q       All right. And was it at that time, Mr. Jarrell, that you mentioned to him about the $1 million cancer policy? A  Let me see.

(Time was allowed for the witness.)

A    I don't remember.

Q    Okay. But at any rate, Mr. Jarrell, on one of those early visits to Ted Kimble, you did mention to him about the $1 million cancer policy?


A    Yes, sir.

Q    And he in fact purchased a $1 million cancer policy?

A    Yes, sir. The -- when I mentioned that cancer policy, I'm sure that it was while we were waiting on Patricia to come by to sign her life application.

Q    All right. And he purchased that -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- cancer policy?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And that policy, Mr. Jarrell, though it covered both spouses, would cover both Ted and Patricia, as you wrote it, it required the signature of only one person -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- is that correct? Now, when you first talked to Ted about additional life insurance, the first thing he asked you about was the possibility of a $300,000 life insurance policy on Patricia; is that right?

A    Actually, the first time I talked with him about life insurance on either one of them was over the phone, when I called him back -- after he'd called my home the night before, the afternoon before, it was -- and asked me to return his call, if I got in before 5:30. And the next morning when I got to the office, I called him, and that's when we first talked about it. And I -- he gave me some figures at that time, and I ran them on my computer and gave


them to him, but then recommended that we -- you don't buy insurance that way. I use the old insurance cliche, you don't buy insurance like you do hamburger, by the pound. And so, I told him that, you know, "You can buy too much or too little. We can do a need analysis. I can get with you and Patricia at your home." He said, "No, we can't do that." He said, "Just come by -- can you come by here?" Which I did.

Q    So, he suggested that you come by Lyles?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right. And that was at your suggestion to talk about the needs of Patricia and Ted, in terms of their term life insurance; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir. That was the secondary plan.

Q    Yes, sir.

A    I mean, my plan was actually to go and get them both involved in how much they really needed.

Q    Well, your plan, Mr. Jarrell, was to sell them insurance; is that right?

A    My plan is -- was to take care of their needs, and ultimately when you do, you do sell insurance.

Q    All right. And when you went and talked to Ted at Lyles, he explained to you that Patricia -- and of course, you already knew this -- currently had $50,000 insurance on her; is that right?


A    I don't believe that was discussed, about the other insurance that she had. I'm -- you know, I know he -- you know, he's the beneficiary, and I'm sure he knew about it. The insurance that we talked about was the new insurance that he wanted.

Q    Well, did Ted not tell you, Mr. Jarrell, that he had $100,000 insurance on him at the time?

A    His wife told me that.

Q    All right. So you knew that?

A    Yes.

Q    And you discussed that, when you went over this need analysis with Ted; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And that what he wanted to do was to do -- get $150,000

in additional insurance on himself?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And get $200,000 on Patricia?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    So that they would both have $250,000 on each one of

them; is that correct, Mr. Jarrell?

A    That is right. And then he wanted a $50,000 policy to take care of that loan, should something happen, to his


Q    You said $50,000. That was actually $25,000?

A    25. I'm sorry. It is 25.


Q    So that was a separate situation?

A    Yes.

Q    And he explained to you why he wanted that?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Because his dad would be the beneficiary on that?

A    That's right.

Q    And that was to cover, as he told you, the loan that had been taken out for Lyles -- that he bought the business

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- with; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And so that the -- when you did the final need analysis, what you came up with was a figure of $250,000 on Patricia and Ted both, where they would each be the beneficiary of the other; is that right?

A    No, sir. We did not do a need analysis. He gave me the figures. He first started with $300,000 -‑

Q    Yes, sir.

A    -- on Patricia, and because of the premium, he said, "I can't do that." He said, "Try $200,000."

Q    All right.

A    Which I did. And that was agreeable.

Q    All right. Well, you didn't at that time, Mr. Jarrell, say to Ted Kimble, "You don't need this insurance, Mr.


Kimble," did you?

A    The policies on him?

Q    Policy on him or on Patricia.

A    Well, I assumed that that was to be between them both, whether they did that or not on her. And -- because her application is a separate entity there, in connection with his. What I'm saying is that, he cannot make a decision on her having that insurance policy. But he told me that they wanted that.

Q    All right.

A    And so, then we waited for Patricia to come and -‑

Q    So you wrote the application -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- for them; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q   All right. So that the total insurance, as you discussed it with Ted, would be $250,000 on Ted and $250,000 on Patricia; is that right?

A    That's right.

Q    Now, when you were discussing insurance with Ted, you understood that Ted's business at that time was Lyles Building Supplies?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And of course, you were well aware that what Patricia's job was --


A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- running Cinnamon Ridge Apartments; is that right? A  Yes, sir.

Q    All right. And you were aware, Mr. Jarrell, that Patricia had a hand in doing the books for Lyles business, Lyles Building Supply?

A    No, sir, I did not.

Q    All right. And when you filled out the applications, the -- first of all, you filled out an application for Patricia's additional insurance, and you filled out an application for Ted's additional insurance, didn't you?

A    I filled out Ted's first, and got him to sign -‑

Q    All right.

A -- both of his applications, and also the accelerated benefit. And then I asked him, "Should I go to Patricia's office, for her policy?" He said, "No. She'll be by here in a few minutes."

Q    All right. And in fact, in a few minutes, she did come by, didn't she?

A Well, yes, sir. I went ahead and filled out the application, just the information I had already in my computer.

Q    Yes, sir.

A    And -- but he also -- I had talked with him about the cancer policy, while we were waiting for her, and he said,


"I'll take that."

Q    All right.

A    And which he did. And then, later on, he said, "Do you have a brochure on that cancer policy?" I said, "Ted, I'm sorry." And I went to my car. And that's when I saw -- met Patricia coming in the door as I went out.

Q    And you spoke to her at that time?

A    Yes, sir. And she spoke to me.

Q    All right. Now, Mr. Jarrell, it was after you came back in inside that Ted indicated to you that Patricia had signed the policy; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And Mr. Jarrell, the guidelines for your company require that you witness the signatures of all the persons filing an application for insurance; is that right?

A    That's right. And to use common sense. And -‑

Q    All right.

A    -- which, she was there in person, and you would have -- I would -- I was led to believe that she signed it. She was there in person. And also, there was some other things that had to happen before that policy was issued, one being a blood profile, and another, her answering those health questions. So I was not concerned -- that never entered my mind, that she did not sign that application.

Q    And in terms of the guidelines of your company, you


explained to Ted that these were applications, and you explained to him what had to transpire in the -‑

A    Yes, sir.

Q    -- future -­A Yes, sir.

Q    -- for these to actually become -‑

A    Policies.

Q    -- in effect policies?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right.

MR. LLOYD: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh?


Q   Regardless of any explanations you gave him, he did file a claim on the $200,000 policy; is that right? A  There was no claim filed on the $200,000 policy. The claim was filed on the two $25,000 policies, due to the -­because he was told that that policy, there was not even a policy issued. And so, he could not file a claim on that $200,000, after I told him on the phone that the policy was not in force.

Q    So he didn't file a claim through you?

A    No, sir.

Q    Are you aware of whether he filed a claim through the home office?


A    I'm not aware of it, sir.

Q    But you did give him the home office number?

A    Yes, sir.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Lloyd, any additional questions?

MR. LLOYD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down, sir. Watch your step. (The witness left the witness stand.)

THE COURT: You may stand and stretch a moment, if you'd like, members of the jury. Stand up and take a stretch.

Do you have a short witness, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: We could probably finish today.

THE COURT: All right. I have a juror that needs

to leave at 5:00.

MR. PANOSH: I'll do my best, Your Honor. Whatever you say.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.



Published August 15, 2006.  Report broken links or other problems.

© PWC Consulting.  Visit our website at for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.