§411 Liability Insurance

• Library: Evidence Restated Deskbook (2021 Ed.)

§411 Liability Insurance

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully, but the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Notes

This section requires the exclusion of evidence of the existence or nonexistence of liability insurance coverage when offered to prove negligence or wrongful conduct of a party based on a lack of relevancy. SeeStanford v. Morgan, 588 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979). The exclusion is also grounded on the fear that jurors would inevitably misuse the evidence to arrive at verdicts based on improper grounds. SeeWhitman v. Carver, 88 S.W.2d 885, 886–89 (Mo. 1935); Stafford v. Far-Go Van Lines, Inc., 485 S.W.2d 481, 493 (Mo. App. W.D. 1972).

Reversible error?

Although it is error for insurance to be injected into a case, it is rare to find a reversal for the occurrence. That is so because "[i]t is [only] when counsel acts with 'adroit purpose' or in bad faith to impress the jury that someone other than the defendant would be responsible for the judgment that reversal is the expected sanction." Health Related Servs., Inc. v. Golden Plains Convalescent Ctr., 806 S.W.2d 102, 108 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, the cases look to whether liability insurance was injected "purposefully" or in "bad faith." Saint Louis Univ. v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Mo. banc 2009); Means v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 550 S.W.2d 780, 787 (Mo. banc 1977); see also:

· Wheeler ex rel. Wheeler v. Phenix, 335 S.W.3d 504, 514–15 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011)

· Woods v. Friendly Ford, Inc., 248 S.W.3d 665 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)

· Ruzicka v. Ryder Student Transp. Servs., Inc., 145 S.W.3d 1, 17 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004)

· Banks v. Vill. Enters., Inc., 32 S.W.3d 780, 793 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)

· Wilson v. Kaufmann, 847 S.W.2d 840, 851 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992)

· Hulsey v. Schulze, 713 S.W.2d 873, 875–76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986)

· Gray v. Williams, 289 S.W.2d 463, 467 (Mo. App. E.D. 1956)

Moreover, the party "alleging that the references constitute reversible error must demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the references." Hudson v. Whiteside, 34 S.W.3d 420, 425 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Means, 550 S.W.2d at 787; see alsoAnnen v. Trump, 913 S.W.2d 16, 23 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (in an action brought for breach of contract in the construction of a restaurant, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of the existence of a performance bond procured by the contractor because there was no showing that the admission was prejudicial).

For an example of a bad faith injection...