Opinion ID: 1489448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination as to Commonality of Insurance Providers

Text: In contrast to their failure to address the compensation of defense experts, Appellants did make some attempt to raise the issue of commonality between the malpractice insurance carriers of the defense witnesses and the defendants as a source of potential bias. [3] This issue has previously been addressed only by the Court of Appeals. In Wallace v. Leedhanachoke, 949 S.W.2d 624 (Ky.App.1996), the Court of Appeals held that the [trial court] was required to balance the probative value of the evidence [of commonality between insurance carriers] ... against the prejudicial effect it may have produced before it permitted the cross-examination proposed by the plaintiffs. Id. at 628. The Court of Appeals went on to note: The mere fact that the two physicians shared a common insurance carrier  absent a more compelling degree of connection  does not clearly evince bias by the expert, and its arguable relevance or probative value is insufficient to outweigh the well-established rule as to the inadmissibility of evidence as to the existence of insurance. Id. We agree with the Court of Appeals. Its holding in Wallace is a sound application of the balancing test required by KRE 403 as applied to the specific issue of commonality of insurance carriers. During Appellants' cross-examination of Dr. Boyer, the trial court summarily refused to allow this proposed line of questioning without engaging in the balancing test described in Wallace . The trial court's refusal even to consider admission of this testimony might constitute error if it could be shown to be prejudicial. However, we cannot undertake such analysis because there is no evidence in the record, even by avowal, of commonality of insurance carriers. Appellants' attorney stated he would proffer evidence as to commonality of malpractice providers later in the trial, but this never occurred. Having been denied the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Boyer on this issue, it was incumbent upon Appellants' counsel to at least make an avowal in order to ensure the issue could be adequately reviewed on appeal. [W]ithout an avowal to show what a witness would have said an appellate court has no basis for determining whether an error in excluding his proffered testimony was prejudicial. Cain v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 369 (Ky.1977). In this case, it is not enough that Appellants have identified the issue because their failure to proffer any evidence of commonality, much less any improper motive or bias on behalf of those testifying, precludes any finding of prejudice.