Rule 411  Liability insurance.  Evidence
that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon
the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.  This
rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability
when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or
control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; gen ch
1985]



 



RULE 411 COMMENTARY



 



  This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 411.  The
virtual unanimity of judicial rejection of evidence that a party is or is not
insured against liability is soundly based on both legal and policy
considerations.  Foremost among these is the question of relevance.  The fact
that a party to an action does or does not carry liability insurance provides
no logical basis for an inference of negligence or lack of negligence.  Of
equal concern is the danger that knowledge of the existence or the lack of
liability insurance coverage might bias the jurors and influence them to make a
decision on irrelevant and improper grounds.  See Carr v. Kinney, 41 H. 166,
176 (1955); Gilliam v. Gerhardt, 34 H. 466 (1938).



 



Case Notes



 



  Where relevant evidence of witness' potential bias was
elicited at trial, trial court properly balanced the prejudice concerns of
defendant with the relevance and probative value of liability insurance
evidence to reveal witness' potential bias; thus, trial court did not abuse its
discretion in limiting evidence of bias, interest or motive with due regard for
rule 403.  106 H. 298 (App.), 104 P.3d 336.