Rule 411: Liability Insurance

Rule 411 prevents parties from introducing evidence of liability insurance (or lack thereof) to prove fault. A plaintiff cannot argue 'the defendant had insurance, so they were probably careless because they knew they were covered,' and a defendant cannot argue 'I had no insurance, so I must have been extra careful.'

The rule exists for two reasons. First, insurance is not logically probative of negligence — having or lacking insurance says nothing about how carefully someone behaved. Second, and more importantly, telling a jury about insurance creates a serious risk of unfair prejudice. A jury that knows the defendant has deep-pocketed insurance may be more inclined to find liability and award large damages, not because the evidence proves fault, but because someone else will pay.

As with other policy exclusion rules, Rule 411 allows insurance evidence for non-prohibited purposes. If a witness is employed by the defendant's insurance company, the insurance relationship can be revealed to show the witness's bias. Insurance evidence can also prove agency, ownership, or control when those issues are disputed.