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, 1991Justice 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 failureto objectat trial to thedefendant's reference to liability insurance precludes a post-trial motion for a new trial. Theplaintiffwas injured at thedefendant'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. 

### Ididn't really get into it toomuch. But I don't remember if I asked her, you know, what happened or 

## -- I think I asked 

## -- Maybe I did ask what happened orhow shewas. And I think I offered 

## -- told her, "Do you want my insuranceman'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 insurancewas inviolation 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 consistentlyheld 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. ~ozemanProduction 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. InRasmussen v. Sibert, 153 

### Mont. 286, 295, 456 P.2d 835, 840, the Court stated: [D]efendantlsfailure 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 otherwisewould 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 CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE 

### I herebycertifythat thefollowingorderwas sentbyUnited Statesmail,prepaid, tothe following

### named:

David

### L.Astle ASTLE &

### ASTLE 705Main

### St. Kalispell,

### MT 59901 DanielW. 

### Hileman ATTORNEY

### AT LAW P,O.

### Box 728 Kalispell,

### MT 59903-0728 

### EDSMITH CLERKR

### THESUPREMECOURT