Rule 411 (Liability Insurance)

Question 1

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, claiming that the defendant carelessly rammed the plaintiff’s car and then drove away from the scene. The defendant denies that he hit the plaintiff’s car. The defendant offers evidence that he is fully insured for any damage he causes to other cars, arguing that this suggests he had little motive to leave the scene of the accident if he had been the careless driver.
Is the defendant’s evidence relevant?
Does Rule 411 bar its admission?

Answer 1

Answer:
The evidence probably is relevant. The fact that the defendant has insurance makes the chance that he hit the plaintiff’s car only a little less likely, but that’s all Rules 401–402 demand.
The result under Rule 411 is less clear. At first, the plaintiff seems to have a strong case to exclude the evidence. She will rely on the rule’s plain language, arguing that the defendant is offering evidence that he was “insured against liability” to “prove whether [he] acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.”
The defendant can point out that the rule seems concerned with evidence about whether a party had insurance covering the allegedly wrongful act. The defendant isn’t arguing that he had a motive to drive carefully because he lacked insurance. Instead, he’s arguing that his insurance diminished any incentive to conceal his involvement in the accident. The defendant can also argue that there is little danger of unfair prejudice if the court admits this evidence. If anything, the defendant’s evidence of insurance might encourage the jury to increase any award against him. In light of these factors, a court might well admit the evidence.

Question 2

Butler County Community College (BCCC) was recruiting Christopher Foster, a high school senior for its basketball team. The team’s coach asked a team member named George Johnson to pick foster up at the airport. While driving away from the airport, Johnson drove through a stop sign and collided with a tractor trailer. Foster, who was seriously injured in the accident, sued the coach and BCCC for their negligence in choosing Johnson to drive Foster.
At trial, Foster offered evidence that Johnson lacked automobile liability insurance on his car, that his car was unregistered, and that Johnson did not have a valid driver’s license.
Is this evidence admissible to show that the coach and BCCC were negligent in selecting Johnson to drive Foster?

Answer 2

The district judge admitted all of the evidence, because Foster was not offering the insurance related evidence to show Johnson’s carelessness. Instead, he argued that the missing insurance was a fact, like the lack of a driver’s license, that the defendants (BCCC & the Coach) knew or should have known when choosing Johnson to drive. The language of Rule 411 supports this result because it precludes evidence of a particular person’s insurance status when offered to prove “whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.” In this case, the plaintiff offered Johnson’s lack of insurance to prove liability of different parties (Defendants – BCCC & Coach), not Johnson