No. 91-075 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1991 

MICHELE COSNER, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

TODD NAPIER, d/b/a FLATHEAD 

TRANSMISSION SPECIALIST, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Flathead, 

The Honorable Lei£ B. Erickson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

David L. Astle, Astle & Astle, 

Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Daniel W. Hileman, Murray & Kaufman, P.C., 

Kalispell, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: June 18, 1991 

Decided: July 2, 1991 
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler &elivered the opinion of the Court. 

Michele Cosner appeals from the judgment of the District Court 

for the Eleventh Judicial District in Flathead County, denying 

appellant's motion for new trial. We affirm the District Court. 

The sole issue for our determination is whether the 

plaintiff 's failure to object at trial to the defendant's reference 

to liability insurance precludes a post-trial motion for a new 

trial. 

The plaintiff was injured at the defendant's place of business 

when she tripped on an uneven cargo bay entrance. The plaintiff 

dropped an automobile transmission she was carrying and sustained 

injuries to her ankle. 

Prior to trial, the defendant moved in limine to exclude any 

testimony or evidence concerning the existence of insurance 

coverage on behalf of the defendant. That motion was granted. 

However, during his own examination, the defendant gave the 

following testimony: 

Q: Did you talk to her [plaintiff] about what happened? 

A: Kind of. I didn't really get into it too much. But 

I don't remember if I asked her, you know, what 

happened or -- I think I asked -- Maybe I did ask 

what happened or how she was. And I think I offered 

-- told her, "Do you want my insurance man's phone 

number?" She just kind of almost laughed and said, 

"Just one of those things; don't worry about it. 

I tripped." 

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the mention of 

insurance was in violation of Rule 411, M.R.Evid., that it unfairly 
prejudiced her case, and that the judgment should be vacated and 

a new trial granted. However, the record shows that the plaintiff 

made no objection to the above statement regarding insurance, nor 

to statements made by defense counsel in closing which the 

plaintiff claims inferred the existence of insurance. 

This Court has consistently held that parties must make their 

objections known to the trial court at the time the objectionable 

conduct or evidence is introduced in order to preserve the issue 

for purposes of appeal. Beil v. Mayer, 242 Mont. 204, 789 P.2d 

1229 (1990) ; Zirnrnerrnan v. ~ozeman Production Credit Assn., 233 

Mont. 156, 759 P.2d 166 (1988). A timely objection is also 

required by Rule 103, M.R.Evid. 

In Reno v. Erickstein, 209 Mont. 36, 679 P.2d 1204 (l984), 

under circumstances similar to those in this case, we held that the 

failure of plaintiff's counsel to make objections at the time 

references were made by defense counsel regarding defendant's 

supposed lack of insurance coverage, in violation of defendant's 

own motion in limine, precluded review of the issue on appeal. 

In Rasmussen v. Sibert, 153 Mont. 286, 295, 456 P.2d 835, 840, 

the Court stated: 

[D]efendantls failure to object or request corrective 

action constituted a waiver of objection on this issue. 

It cannot be urged for this first time upon motion for 

a new trial following an adverse jury verdict. To hold 

otherwise would not only put the trial court in error on 

an issue which had not been presented to it for ruling, 

but would permit a litigant to submit his case to the 

jury for a possible verdict in his favor, and in the 
event he was unsuccessful, would permit him another 

determination by another jury. 

(Citations omitted. ) 

We conclude that the lower court properly denied the 

plaintiffls motion for a new trial, and the judgment of the 

District Court is affirmed. 

We Concur: 

/ 
July 2, 1991 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

David L. Astle 

ASTLE & ASTLE 

705 Main St. 

Kalispell, MT 59901 

Daniel W. Hileman 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

P,O. Box 728 

Kalispell, MT 59903-0728 

ED SMITH 

CLERKR THE SUPREME COURT