🔍
Federal Evidence • Policy Considerations & Exclusions
EVID#085
Legal Definition
Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence or ability to pay, but is admissible to prove ownership or control, or to impeach a witness.
However, if an admission of liability is tied to a reference to insurance coverage and it is not possible to sever the two, then reference to the insurance coverage is admissible.
However, if an admission of liability is tied to a reference to insurance coverage and it is not possible to sever the two, then reference to the insurance coverage is admissible.
Plain English Explanation
Society wants people to have liability insurance. Having insurance doesn't necessarily mean you know you'll need it, it may just mean you're a responsible member of society who cares about others and wants to be safe just in case an accident happens. Thus, courts don't allow evidence that someone has liability insurance to prove they were careless or can pay for damages. But, there are some exceptions:
(1) Ownership or Control: If there’s a question about who owns or controls something, insurance records might help show the answer. For example, if a truck is in an accident and there's a dispute over who owns it, the name on the insurance policy could clear that up.
(2) Impeaching a Witness: If a witness’s truthfulness is in question, and they’ve made statements about their insurance that contradict other things they’ve said, this might be relevant.
(3) Inseparable Admission of Fault: Sometimes, a person might admit they did something wrong and mention their insurance in the same statement. If you can't mention the fault without the insurance part, then the insurance can be talked about too. This ensures that important admissions aren’t excluded just because they’re tied to mentions of insurance.
(1) Ownership or Control: If there’s a question about who owns or controls something, insurance records might help show the answer. For example, if a truck is in an accident and there's a dispute over who owns it, the name on the insurance policy could clear that up.
(2) Impeaching a Witness: If a witness’s truthfulness is in question, and they’ve made statements about their insurance that contradict other things they’ve said, this might be relevant.
(3) Inseparable Admission of Fault: Sometimes, a person might admit they did something wrong and mention their insurance in the same statement. If you can't mention the fault without the insurance part, then the insurance can be talked about too. This ensures that important admissions aren’t excluded just because they’re tied to mentions of insurance.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is sued after someone slips and falls on his property during a party. During the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer attempts to introduce evidence that Bob has a homeowner’s insurance policy covering such accidents. The lawyer argues that the existence of the insurance suggests Bob knew the property was risky and had prepared for potential accidents financially. Result: The court rules this evidence inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 411. The existence of liability insurance does not imply that Bob knew his property was hazardous or that he was negligent. It is common for homeowners to carry such insurance as a standard precaution. Introducing this evidence could unfairly bias the jury to believe that Bob’s ability to cover damages (due to his insurance) might be a reason to find him liable, which is not relevant to the actual issue of whether he was negligent in this specific instance. The court excludes the insurance evidence to prevent prejudicial assumptions based on Bob’s financial preparedness rather than focusing on the facts of the case regarding his alleged negligence.
Hypo 2: During a trial over a car accident, the defense tries to suggest that because the plaintiff, Sam, had only recently purchased comprehensive auto insurance, he might have been driving more recklessly. The defense argues that Sam's recent insurance acquisition points to a premeditation to take risks while driving. Result: The judge dismisses this argument as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial under Rule 411. The judge clarifies that purchasing auto insurance is a common practice for responsible drivers and does not indicate a propensity for reckless driving. The attempt to link insurance coverage with reckless behavior is deemed speculative and inappropriate for influencing the jury’s decision on negligence.
Hypo 3: In a business litigation case, evidence is presented that Amy, the defendant, had liability insurance for her company. The evidence is introduced not to prove negligence, but to establish that she had control over the business operations, which is a key issue in the dispute over contractual responsibilities. Result: The court allows this evidence since it is relevant to proving control over the business, not to show Amy was likely to have been negligent. This use of insurance information aligns with the exceptions under Rule 411, where evidence of insurance is admissible to prove ownership or control.
Hypo 4: During the deposition in a defamation case, Bob mentions that his liability insurance would cover any damages awarded, implying he is not worried about the financial consequences. This statement is sought to be introduced at trial to show his cavalier attitude towards the truthfulness of his statements. Result: The court finds that the reference to insurance in this context could be admissible because it is directly tied to Bob’s credibility regarding his statements, and not simply to prove his ability to pay a judgment. This aligns with the rule allowing insurance evidence when it is relevant to witness credibility or other substantive legal issues beyond the mere ability to pay.
Hypo 5: During settlement negotiations following a workplace accident, Bob, the employer, states, "I know the safety rail was not up to code, which is my fault, but my insurance will cover all the medical expenses." This statement is later sought to be introduced in the subsequent lawsuit by the injured employee, Sam, to prove negligence on Bob's part. Result: The court rules that this statement is admissible despite its reference to insurance. Since Bob’s admission of fault is inseparably linked to his mention of insurance coverage, the entire statement is allowed. This exception applies because severing the reference to insurance from the admission would omit a crucial part of the statement that acknowledges responsibility. The court allows the admission under the rule that if an admission of liability is inseparably tied to a reference to insurance, it can be introduced to ensure the admission of fault is considered.
Hypo 2: During a trial over a car accident, the defense tries to suggest that because the plaintiff, Sam, had only recently purchased comprehensive auto insurance, he might have been driving more recklessly. The defense argues that Sam's recent insurance acquisition points to a premeditation to take risks while driving. Result: The judge dismisses this argument as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial under Rule 411. The judge clarifies that purchasing auto insurance is a common practice for responsible drivers and does not indicate a propensity for reckless driving. The attempt to link insurance coverage with reckless behavior is deemed speculative and inappropriate for influencing the jury’s decision on negligence.
Hypo 3: In a business litigation case, evidence is presented that Amy, the defendant, had liability insurance for her company. The evidence is introduced not to prove negligence, but to establish that she had control over the business operations, which is a key issue in the dispute over contractual responsibilities. Result: The court allows this evidence since it is relevant to proving control over the business, not to show Amy was likely to have been negligent. This use of insurance information aligns with the exceptions under Rule 411, where evidence of insurance is admissible to prove ownership or control.
Hypo 4: During the deposition in a defamation case, Bob mentions that his liability insurance would cover any damages awarded, implying he is not worried about the financial consequences. This statement is sought to be introduced at trial to show his cavalier attitude towards the truthfulness of his statements. Result: The court finds that the reference to insurance in this context could be admissible because it is directly tied to Bob’s credibility regarding his statements, and not simply to prove his ability to pay a judgment. This aligns with the rule allowing insurance evidence when it is relevant to witness credibility or other substantive legal issues beyond the mere ability to pay.
Hypo 5: During settlement negotiations following a workplace accident, Bob, the employer, states, "I know the safety rail was not up to code, which is my fault, but my insurance will cover all the medical expenses." This statement is later sought to be introduced in the subsequent lawsuit by the injured employee, Sam, to prove negligence on Bob's part. Result: The court rules that this statement is admissible despite its reference to insurance. Since Bob’s admission of fault is inseparably linked to his mention of insurance coverage, the entire statement is allowed. This exception applies because severing the reference to insurance from the admission would omit a crucial part of the statement that acknowledges responsibility. The court allows the admission under the rule that if an admission of liability is inseparably tied to a reference to insurance, it can be introduced to ensure the admission of fault is considered.
