Is Automobile Insurance Admissible at Trial? 

If you are involved in an automobile accident caused by the other driver and their insurance company refuses to pay your claim, you may be compelled to file a lawsuit and go to trial. But, as far as the jury is concerned, you are suing the sweet old grandma, the single mom struggling to make ends meet, or the college student living in a dorm room, not the insurance company that refuses to pay a valid claim. 

Although the insurance company of the defendant is responsible for paying the verdict and for bringing you to trial, defense attorneys, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and judges have to lie by omission, never mentioning the insurance company and denying to answer jurors’ questions about insurance. To learn more, speak to a Hartford CT personal injury lawyer today. 

Plaintiffs are not allowed to talk about insurance during the trial. 

Why are plaintiffs barred from discussing insurance during their trials? Court rules, statutes, and Supreme Court decisions forbid it. 

Although the Rule enables insurance evidence to be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of agency, control, ownership, or prejudice or bias of a witness, it is uncommon for this situation to arise, let alone for the court to sanction it. Any mention of insurance during an automobile accident trial is met with shock and terror, often resulting in a mistrial. 

Is auto insurance admissible in court? 

The simple answer is no. The long answer is far more complex and frightening. Most people feel that you must sue the insurance company if you are injured in a vehicle accident. However, most states’ laws prohibit you from suing the insurance company and instead allow you to sue the tortfeasor (negligent party). 

One of the most perplexing aspects of a car accident case is that the plaintiff cannot discuss, infer, or talk about the defendant’s automobile insurance. While this may appear fair theoretically, it creates a terrible dilemma since defense counsel frequently conclude that their client will be held personally liable for the verdict. On the other hand, the plaintiff is stuck in a situation where if they mention insurance, the judge will give a “mistrial,” and we will have to retry the case. 

The truth is that cases proceed to trial only because insurance companies believe they can mislead a jury with insurance propaganda about frivolous lawsuits and the plaintiff not being as injured as he or she claims. Then they try to play on the jurors’ sympathy by claiming that the defendant will be held personally liable for the verdict, which is simply not the case. Due to this, trials can be very challenging if you do not have an experienced attorney by your side. 

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button