Opinion ID: 1846461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: allowing introduction of evidence concerning insurance.

Text: ¶ 79. Coho and Cockrell next assert that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after attorney for plaintiffs elicited testimony concerning insurance as follows: Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what lawyers represented you in that matter when you first got sued? A. When I first got sued? Q. Yes, sir. Up until last week? A. The lawyersthe Smith Brothers insurance lawyers. (emphasis added). ¶ 80. In Jackson v. Daley, 739 So.2d 1031, 1039 (Miss.1999), we stated: It is well established in this state that evidence of insurance or lack thereof may not be presented at a trial to show who would have to pay the judgment. However, in Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1992), we said: The general rule that insurance should not be mentioned before a jury has long been adhered to by this Court because it was thought to prejudice a defendant. However, [t]he likelihood of the [defendant] being prejudiced by the mention of insurance has been diminished in recent years because most jurors, and other citizens, ... share the common knowledge [regarding coverage of] liability insurance. Such awareness has meant that the mere mentioning of insurance in a trial is not cause for mistrial in all cases. The trial judge is in the most advantageous position to correctly rule whether prejudice, or the lack of it, has emanated from the comment of a witness. Therefore, a large discretion has been [vested in] the trial [judge] in ruling upon comments concerning insurance arising during a trial. Meena, 603 So.2d at 873-74 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 81. In the case sub judice, Ainsworth's response that mentioned insurance was spontaneous, unsolicited, and non-responsive. Coho and Cockrell did not make a contemporaneous objection that would have allowed the trial judge to instruct the jury to disregard the remark. Instead, they asked to approach the bench and were advised to make a record on that point at a later time. ¶ 82. We find that the mere spontaneous, unsolicited and non-responsive mention of insurance does not rise to the level of reversible error, and the trial court did not abuse his discretion in not declaring a mistrial on this issue.