In a civil case, evidence that a person was insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligence; the court may accept this evidence for another purpose. Is this statement true or false?

In a civil case, evidence that a person was insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligence; the court may accept this evidence for another purpose. Is this statement true or false?

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only if the insured agrees
• D. Only in federal court with a jury

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that insurance status cannot be used to prove who was negligent. In civil cases, evidence that a person was insured against liability is not admissible on the issue of fault. This helps prevent a jury from assuming liability simply because an party has insurance. But that same evidence can be admitted for other permissible purposes, such as showing bias or prejudice of a witness, or to prove agency, ownership, or control. So while you can’t use insurance to establish negligence, you can use it for another relevant purpose if the court decides it’s admissible for that reason. Therefore the statement is true.

The main idea is that insurance status cannot be used to prove who was negligent. In civil cases, evidence that a person was insured against liability is not admissible on the issue of fault. This helps prevent a jury from assuming liability simply because an party has insurance. But that same evidence can be admitted for other permissible purposes, such as showing bias or prejudice of a witness, or to prove agency, ownership, or control. So while you can’t use insurance to establish negligence, you can use it for another relevant purpose if the court decides it’s admissible for that reason. Therefore the statement is true.