Courts are reticent to allow the introduction of evidence pertaining to insurance coverage in accident cases. The reason is that unless it is somehow pertinent to the cause of the crash or extent of the injuries, it can be prejudicial to a jury.
For example, if jurors know that a certain defendant has no insurance, they may decline to impose a significant award of damages to the plaintiff – knowing the defendant is going to have to come out-of-pocket for that expense. Similarly, if jurors had knowledge that a defendant had a sizable insurance policy, they may be inclined to impose a heftier damage award – because they know the insurance company can pay.
Courts prefer to simply take it out of the equation.
In the recent Maryland case of Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc., a pedestrian was struck and severely injured by a dump truck wherein neither the driver nor the vehicle had the proper liability coverage. But was this fact admissible? Continue reading →