Rule 411 Liability Insurance

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person 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.

Comment

Evidence of liability insurance may not be used to prove fault because there is no necessary or probable relationship between the two.[1] Knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance may also induce jurors to decide cases on improper grounds or influence the size of verdicts.[2] Admission of such evidence is, however, admissible for any other relevant purpose. The trial court must do the weighing and balancing if the opposing party objects under Rule 403,[3] and must give a limiting instruction if requested under Rule 105.[4]

Cases

411.010 The trial court may not admit evidence of liability insurance to prove that a party acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully, but may do so if offered for some relevant purpose.

Barsema v. Susong,156 Ariz. 309, 751 P.2d 969 (1988) (because it was unlikely witness would be biased merely because witness and defendant had same insurance carrier, trial court should not have admitted evidence of liability insurance solely to show this relationship).

Barsema v. Susong,156 Ariz. 309, 751 P.2d 969 (1988) (because evidence that defendant's expert witness was vice president of defendant's insurance carrier was relevant to show bias, interest, and agency, trial court erred in precluding plaintiff from introducing this evidence).

...