Skuda Law Firm - Insurance Bad Faith, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice
  • Home
  • About
  • Plaintiffs' Civil Litigation
    • Torts and Coffee
    • LGBTQ Representation
    • Hidden from Juries
  • Insurance Bad Faith
  • Automobile Cases
  • FREE CONSULTATION
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Plaintiffs' Civil Litigation
    • Torts and Coffee
    • LGBTQ Representation
    • Hidden from Juries
  • Insurance Bad Faith
  • Automobile Cases
  • FREE CONSULTATION
  • Contact
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

Picture

Hidden from Juries


Yes, the defendant has insurance.



Jurors always want to know if the defendant has insurance.  The law, however, prevents them from knowing.  In fact, the mere mention of insurance during trial can cause a mistrial in the typical personal injury or property damage case.  Why?

Decades ago, professors, lawmakers, and judges decided jurors were too dumb to handle knowing if a defendant had insurance and would consider it in calculating their award.  The insurance industry, of course, backed this position, claiming if juries knew the defendant had insurance, they would award unfairly high damages.  (Much of this reasoning occurred before liability insurance was so common and when even low-value cases tended to go trial.)

The resulting Rule of Evidence 411 excludes, “[e]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability.”  The rule bars all lawyers and witnesses at trial from mentioning whether the defendant has liability insurance, much less how much coverage.  In fact, judges tend to order that no one even use the word “insurance” at trial, in case jurors suddenly figure out what they already suspect.

Rest assured, if you see a person sitting at the defendant’s table with a well-dressed lawyer (or two or three) and plenty of experts testifying at trial, an insurance company is paying for it all.  The only exception is where a defendant in a liability case is wealthy.  In that case, an insurance company is still likely paying for the defense, but the defendant will also have independent counsel monitoring the insurance defense lawyers to keep them honest.

Is it fair for juries to be kept in the dark about the existence of liability insurance?  I don’t think it is.  Jurors know insurance is likely in play, but still worry it might not be.  Often, the defendant is a nice, relatable person who accidentally caused a horrible car wreck or even a good doctor messed up one time.  The jury wants to award reasonable damages to the plaintiff, but fears bankrupting the nice defendant. 

As a result, the insurance secret becomes a benefit to the defendant and his or her insurance company, as opposed to a neutral rule.  That is, the jurors are afraid to award the full amount of the damages the injured person suffered, fearing they will cause too much harm to the nice defendant.  Thus, it makes more sense at this point, when almost no civil liability trials occur without insurance money in play, to quit pretending juries are dumb and let them in on the “secret.”
Picture
Picture
10.0Phillip Jason Skuda
Seattle & Western Washington
(206) 860-6995 - info@skudalaw.com
Copyright 2019