Opinion ID: 456068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of Prior Similar Payment

Text: 14 At trial, plaintiff introduced deposition testimony from a woman who had been covered by a substantially similar group health insurance policy from Aetna in another jurisdiction. This woman testified that she had undergone treatment for cancer at the IRC, and submitted claims for her treatment to Aetna. She further testified that Aetna had reimbursed her for her claims without disputing them. Appellant's final argument is that the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff to introduce this testimony over appellant's objection at trial. 15 Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides, in relevant part: Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Fed.R.Evid. 408. This rule has been held applicable to situations involving settlements between one of the parties and a third party, where such settlements have arisen out of the same transaction that is in dispute. See Belton v. Fibreboard Corp., 724 F.2d 500, 505 (5th Cir.1984). To hold that Rule 408 bars the testimony presented in the instant case would require a finding that the payment of a claim by an insurance company, where there is no evidence that the company ever disputed the claim, qualifies as a compromise within the meaning of Rule 408. Furthermore, to hold Rule 408 applicable to the instant case would be to extend that rule to forbid evidence of a settlement between one party and a third party when such settlement involves similar circumstances to, but does not arise out of, the transaction with which the litigation is concerned. 16 We hold that the payment by Aetna of the prior claim was not a compromise within the meaning of Rule 408. 2 For Rule 408 to apply, there must be an actual dispute, or at least an apparent difference of opinion between the parties, as to the validity of a claim. 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 408, at 408-10 to 11 (1982). There is no evidence in the record that either the validity or the amount of the payment was ever the subject of dispute. See Mendelovitz v. Adolph Coors Co., 693 F.2d 570, 580 (5th Cir.1982). 17 Appellants argue that under Rule 403 the trial court should have excluded the testimony of the prior payment as irrelevant and prejudicial to Aetna. In order to reverse the trial court, we would be required to hold that the judge abused his discretion in admitting the testimony of the prior payment. See Rozier, 573 F.2d at 1347. The trial judge admitted the testimony on the grounds that, insofar as the testimony of the prior payment tended to show that Aetna had once determined that charges for the IRC treatment were reasonable medical expenses, the testimony was relevant to the question of whether charges for the IRC treatment were in fact reasonable medical expenses, and thus covered by plaintiff's insurance policy. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting this testimony. 18 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.