During a personal injury trial, a witness states that the defendant "didn't seem concerned about safety because any damages would be covered." The defendant objects to this testimony. How should the court rule?
The testimony is inadmissible unless the defendant introduces coverage evidence during their own testimony.
The testimony is admissible if the insurance policy is being used to explain the defendant's state of mind.
The testimony is inadmissible because it suggests fault based on the awareness of coverage.
The testimony is admissible if it relates to the defendant's ability to compensate the plaintiff.
Federal Rule of Evidence 411 generally excludes any evidence that references insurance coverage when used to argue fault or negligence. The rule aims to prevent unfair prejudice by discouraging jurors from assuming that an insured party is more likely to be at fault. Here, the testimony directly suggests fault based on coverage awareness, making it inadmissible. Insurance evidence may be permissible for other purposes, like establishing agency or ownership, but no such purpose exists in this scenario. Other answers incorrectly extend or misinterpret the limited exceptions permitted under Rule 411.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is Federal Rule of Evidence 411?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important to exclude insurance evidence from proving fault?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Are there any exceptions where insurance evidence can be admitted?