Rule 411: Asking the Insurance Question During Voir Dire
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 53 |
| Citation | Vol. 25 No. 5 Pg. 53 |
1996, May, Pg. 53. Rule 411: Asking The Insurance Question During Voir Dire
Q: May the name of a defendant's insurance carrier be mentioned during voir dire?
A: Subject to certain limitations, yes.
V. W. Bugg was seriously injured when her car collided with a truck owned and operated by Road Hogg Trucking, Inc. Ms. Bugg commenced a personal injury action against Road Hogg. In its initial disclosure statement, Road Hogg revealed that at the time of the accident it was covered by a liability policy issued by Deep Pockets Insurance Company.(fn1) Before trial, Road Hogg moved in limine to prohibit any reference to Deep Pockets during voir dire. Ms. Bugg opposed the motion, arguing that she was entitled to know whether any of the prospective jurors had a relationship to Deep Pockets. How should the trial court rule on Road Hogg's motion?
Rule 411 of the Colorado Rules of Evidence ("C.R.E.") provides:
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Under the first sentence of this rule, "evidence of a party's liability insurance is irrelevant to the question of whether he acted negligently or otherwise, and as such, any allusion to insurance coverage is improper."(fn2) The rationale underlying this evidentiary bar is that "when the fact of the defendant's insurance coverage is raised at trial, the effect is to suggest that the defendant is able to pay the plaintiff's claim, which is irrelevant to the merits of personal injury actions."(fn3) However, under the open-ended exception created by the second sentence of C.R.E. 411, "evidence of insurance against liability may be offered for other purposes, including bias or prejudice of witnesses."(fn4)
As a rule of evidence, C.R.E. 411 does not directly govern the proper scope of voir dire.(fn5) Nevertheless, the Colorado Supreme Court has referred to C.R.E. 411 in deciding whether (and how) prospective jurors may be asked the so-called "insurance question"---that is, whether any of them are officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial