§ 17.02 Rationale

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 17.02 Rationale

Evidence of liability insurance is simply irrelevant if offered to show negligence. Are people with liability insurance really more likely to act negligently than those without insurance? In addition, there is the risk that the jury may improperly penalize insurance companies for their deep pockets.³ Yet, in traffic accident and malpractice cases, juries probably assume insurance coverage, although the amount may be uncertain.⁴ Indeed, for that reason, a party without insurance might want to inform the jury of this fact; however, the rule also excludes absence-of-insurance evidence.⁵

The policy underiying Rule 411 does not apply in a criminal case (e.g., arson) in which insurance proceeds may be the motive for the crime.

--------

Notes:

^[3] Fed. R. Evid. 411 advisory committee's note ("knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds").

^[4] See Ede v. Atrium S. Ob-Gyn, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 365, 368 (Ohio 1994):

Too often courts have a Pavlovian response to insurance testimony—immediately assuming prejudice. It is naive to believe that today's jurors, bombarded for years with information about health care insurance, do not already assume in a malpractice case that the defendant doctor is covered by insurance. The legal charade protecting juries from information they already know keeps hidden from them relevant information that could assist them in making their determinations.
Given the sophistication of our juries, the first sentence of Evid. R. 411 does not merit the enhanced importance it has been given. Instead of juries knowing the truth about the existence and extent of coverage, they are forced to make assumptions which

...