Section 2.29 Insurance Coverage

• Library: Evidence 2017

XIII. (§2.29) Insurance Coverage

It is generally improper to receive evidence that a defendant has or does not have liability insurance. Woods v. Friendly Ford, Inc., 248 S.W.3d 665, 675 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) .

“‘Only in rare cases where relevancy is clearly shown should the fact of the existence of insurance coverage be admissible.’” Carter v. Wright, 949 S.W.2d 157, 162 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (quoting Stafford v. Far-Go Van Lines, Inc., 485 S.W.2d 481, 493 (Mo. App. W.D. 1972)).

Pope v. Pope, 179 S.W.3d 442, 463–64 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005), contains an excellent exposition of Missouri law relating to the general rule excluding evidence of insurance coverage and the exceptions to that rule:

“In personal injury actions, it is generally reversible error to directly or indirectly show that [the] defendant carries liability insurance.” Hamilton v. Slover, 440 S.W.2d 947, 956 (Mo.1969), overruled on other grounds by Stover v. Patrick, 459 S.W.2d 393, 401 (Mo. banc 1970). See also Page v. Unterreiner, 106 S.W.2d 528, 537 (Mo.App. S.D.1937) (noting that in personal injury cases, the general rule is that it is “reversible error . . . to directly or indirectly show that the defendant carries liability insurance”).

Even so, “not every reference to insurance constitutes reversible error or requires the discharge of a...