§ 17.03 ADMISSIBILITY FOR OTHER PURPOSES

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 17.03. ADMISSIBILITY FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Rule 411 does not apply if insurance evidence is offered for some other purpose — for example, bias, ownership, or agency. This list of "other purposes" is illustrative, not exhaustive.⁶ However, admissibility is not automatic in this context. The requirements of Rules 401 to 403 must still be satisfied.⁷ Trial attorneys are rather creative when it comes to coming up with "proper" reasons for getting insurance evidence before a jury. Frequently, an offer to stipulate will remove an issue from controversy and preclude admissibility if the evidence is offered for some other purpose.

[A] Bias

Evidence of insurance may be admitted to prove bias or prejudice on the part of a witness.⁸ The classic example is the insurance adjustor who interviews the other party and is called at trial to impeach that party with a prior inconsistent statement. As a witness, the adjustor is subject to bias impeachment because she is an employee of a company with a financial interest in the litigation. Recall, however, that Rule 403 still operates in this context.⁹

[B] Ownership and Agency

The fact that a party carried liability insurance that covered another person may be offered as tending to prove an agency relationship. Similarly, insurance coverage on premises is probative of a party's control over or ownership of those premises; people usually do not carry insurance on objects that they do not own.

--------

Notes:

^[6] See Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706, 716-17 (8th Cir. 2001) ("Whether his insurance covers the damage or not, we do not think that Sam Beelman's comments amount to an admission of legal liability or fault, but rather constitute an admission of responsibility for payment based on an erroneous view of what his insurance policy provided.").

^[7] See Hunziker v. Scheidemantle, 543 F.2d 489, 495 n. 10 (3d Cir. 1976) (evidence of insurance coverage "may be admissible if offered for other relevant purposes and if its exclusion would be more prejudicial to the plaintiff here than its admission would be to the defendants").

^[8] E.g., Conde v. Starlight I, Inc., 103 F.3d 210, 214 (1st Cir. 1997) ("Rule 411 does permit mention of insurance coverage, not to prove negligence, but collaterally to show the possible 'bias or prejudice of a witness.' "); Charter v. Chleborad, 551 F.2d...