In negligence action concerning an automobile accident, evidence of liability insurance under FRE 411 was properly excluded when offered to show negligence and was not offered for another purpose permitted under the rule, in King v. Harrington, 447 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2006)
FRE 411 bars evidence of insurance liability on “the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.” FRE 411. However, the rule further specifies that exclusion of insurance liability evidence is not required “when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.” FRE 411.
As the Advisory Committee Notes explained the purpose of the rule:
“The courts have with substantial unanimity rejected evidence of liability insurance for the purpose of proving fault, and absence of liability insurance as proof of lack of fault. At best the inference of fault from the fact of insurance coverage is a tenuous one, as is its converse. More important, no doubt, has been the feeling that knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds. The rule is drafted in broad terms so as to include contributory negligence or other fault of a plaintiff as well as fault of a defendant. The second sentence points out the limits of the rule, using well established illustrations.” (citations omitted)FRE 411 ACN.
In King v. Harrington, the Seventh Circuit explained the operation of FRE 411. The plaintiffs, a driver and passenger, filed a diversity negligence action in federal court after injuries resulted in an automobile accident. Their car collided in an intersection with the defendant's pick-up truck. Before trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning his possession of liability insurance. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the exclusion of the liability insurance was in error.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment and exclusion of evidence. Initially, the circuit “note[d] that the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal law govern the admissibility of evidence in diversity cases.” King, 447 F.3d at 533. The circuit noted the liability evidence was offered for an inadmissible purpose:
“Because the paramount question before the jury was one of negligence, evidence of Harrington's insurance was not admissible absent a showing on the part of King and Shetterly [driver and passenger] that they intended to use the information for some alternate purpose set forth in the second sentence of Rule 411. The plaintiffs made no such alternate showing. Harrington requested the limiting instruction in his motion in limine, and Shetterly and King presented no argument to the contrary. Chief Judge McKinney thus granted Harrington's motion. Nor, during appellate oral argument, did the plaintiffs offer any permissible reason that would make the insurance evidence admissible at trial.”King, 447 F.3d at 533.
FRE 411 is similar to other rules under Article IV of the FRE. These rules specify permissible and impermissible purposes to admit particular evidence. For example, consider:
- FRE 404(b) (evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith” but admissible “for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident”)
- FRE 407 (evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible “to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction” but may be admitted “when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment”)
- FRE 408 (evidence of compromise and offers to compromise is inadmissible “when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction” but may be admissible to show “a witness's bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution”)
- FRE 410 (plea evidence is generally inadmissible the defendant but may be admitted “(i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel”).
Comments
Post new comment