Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 — NE Code / Chapter 27 / Section 27-411
View Statute 27-411
Status: in_force

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he 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.

Laws 1975, LB 279, § 21.

The remote potential for bias of a witness on the basis of sharing the same insurance carrier as the defendant must be balanced against the prejudicial effect of its admission. Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 258 Neb. 671, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000).

The remote potential for bias of a witness on the basis of sharing the same insurance carrier as the defendant must be balanced against the prejudicial effect of its admission. Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 258 Neb. 671, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000).

Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under this section, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to section 27-408. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993).

Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under this section, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to section 27-408. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993).

Where the existence of insurance coverage is not relevant to any issue in the case, evidence of such coverage is inadmissible. Kresha v. Kresha, 216 Neb. 377, 344 N.W.2d 906 (1984).

Where the existence of insurance coverage is not relevant to any issue in the case, evidence of such coverage is inadmissible. Kresha v. Kresha, 216 Neb. 377, 344 N.W.2d 906 (1984).

Inadvertent mention of plaintiff's lack of health insurance is not prejudicial error requiring mistrial where it is not shown that jury inferred that plaintiff was incapable of paying expenses. Where indemnification of defendants does not logically follow from the fact that plaintiff lacked health insurance, it cannot be said that defendants were prejudiced. Bailey v. AMISUB, 1 Neb. App. 56, 489 N.W.2d 323 (1992).

Inadvertent mention of plaintiff's lack of health insurance is not prejudicial error requiring mistrial where it is not shown that jury inferred that plaintiff was incapable of paying expenses. Where indemnification of defendants does not logically follow from the fact that plaintiff lacked health insurance, it cannot be said that defendants were prejudiced. Bailey v. AMISUB, 1 Neb. App. 56, 489 N.W.2d 323 (1992).