Opinion ID: 1100577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the court of appeals erred when it classified a statement made by defense counsel as an impermissible reference to insurance coverage.

Text: ¶ 6. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, there are numerous Mississippi cases which stand for the proposition that references to liability insurance are generally impermissible and constitute reversible error. See Jackson v. Daley, 739 So.2d 1031, 1039 (Miss.1999); Morris v. Huff, 238 Miss. 111, 117-20, 117 So.2d 800, 802-03 (1960); Snowden v. Skipper, 230 Miss. 684, 697, 93 So.2d 834, 840 (1957); Avent v. Tucker, 188 Miss. 207, 225-26, 194 So. 596, 602 (1940); Herrin v. Daly, 80 Miss. 340, 341-42, 31 So. 790, 791 (1902). ¶ 7. However, this Court has made one exception to this general prohibition. Where a defendant makes an impermissible statement intimating that he does not have insurance, the plaintiff is justified to inform the jury just the opposite. Snowden v. Webb, 217 Miss. 664, 674-76, 64 So.2d 745, 750-51 (1953). In Snowden, the defense counsel told the jury that any verdict returned would have to be paid out of his client's wages. Id. at 674, 64 So.2d at 750. Plaintiff's counsel then informed the jury that not one cent of this would come out of Mr. Snowden's pocket or wages. Id. at 674, 64 So.2d at 749. The trial court sustained the defense's objection and instructed the jury to disregard the remark. Id. at 676, 64 So.2d at 751. On appeal, this Court held that the response by plaintiff's counsel was justified and did not constitute reversible error, especially since the circuit judge instructed the jury to disregard the statement. Id. ¶ 8. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding, we find the statement by Crawford's attorney did not rise to the level of language used by the defendant's attorney in Snowden. The statement made by Crawford's attorney did not intimate that Crawford lacked insurance, but instead simply suggested that Crawford, like any defendant, did not want to be held responsible for damages which she did not cause. Smith, 937 So.2d at 455, 2005 WL 2140858, at  (Lee, P.J., dissenting). But see Morris, 238 Miss. at 119-120, 117 So.2d at 802-03 (question by plaintiff's counsel as to whether the owner of an automobile would have to pay a judgment, as well as a statement by plaintiff's counsel that the [owners] will not have to pay one penny even though they own the truck was improper and constituted reversible error.) Furthermore, the Court of Appeals' holding has an unintended effect of preventing a defendant from arguing that she should not be held responsible for pre-existing damage or damage she did not cause. Smith, 937 So.2d at 455, 2005 WL 2140858, at  (Lee, P.J., dissenting). ¶ 9. The decision in Snowden was based on the finding that the defendant's statement was an impermissible reference to liability insurance. Snowden, 217 Miss. 664 at 676, 64 So.2d at 750. Here, we find Crawford's attorney did not reference liability insurance. Thus, the comment by Crawford's defense counsel did not open the door to discussing the issue of insurance. As such, the remark by the Smiths' counsel was improper, contrary to the Smiths' assertion based on Snowden. Because the facts in the case at bar are distinguishable, the holding in Snowden is not applicable to this case. ¶ 10. The next question becomes whether the response by the Smiths' attorney, I covenant with the jury that not a dime of any sum the jury might award the Smiths would come from the pocket of Mrs. Crawford, constituted reversible error. Normally, a party's reference to or intimation that the other party carries or is without liability insurance is improper and constitutes reversible error. However, because we find the comment made by Crawford's attorney was not a reference to insurance, the Smiths' argument, that the trial judge erred when he instructed the jury to disregard the Smiths' statement of their counsel, is without merit. Moreover, if this Court were to find that the remark by the Smiths' attorney constitutes reversible error, this Court would effectively allow the Smiths to benefit from their own mistake, as the Smiths originally appealed the circuit judge's ruling.