Opinion ID: 1320261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yoho v. Thompson

Text: On certiorari, Todd argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's refusal to allow introduction of the payment records because the records were properly admissible to show bias under Yoho v. Thompson, 345 S.C. 361, 548 S.E.2d 584 (2001). We disagree. Prior to 1995, the long-standing rule in South Carolina was that, in an action for damages, a defendant's insurance coverage should not be revealed to the jury. Yoho, 345 S.C. at 365, 548 S.E.2d at 585. Rule 411 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence (SCRE) altered the bar on evidence of insurance and provides: Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. Rule 411, SCRE (2008). In Yoho, we adopted a framework for analysis in considering whether or not to admit evidence of insurance. We held that if Rule 411 does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance, the court should then proceed to perform Rule 403 analysis and consider whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect and potential for confusing the jury. Yoho, 345 S.C. at 365, 548 S.E.2d at 586. As liability was admitted in this case, Rule 411 is not implicated and the question whether the records are admissible turns on Rule 403. In considering whether an expert's connection to a defendant's insurer is sufficiently probative to outweigh the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the jury's knowledge that the defendant carries liability insurance, this Court adopted the substantial connection analysis employed in a majority of jurisdictions. Id. at 366, 548 S.E.2d at 586. Applying the substantial connection test, the Yoho Court noted (1) that the expert was not merely paid an expert fee in the case but instead maintained an employment relationship with the insurance company and other insurance companies; (2) the expert consulted for the insurance company and gave lectures to its agents and adjusters; (3) 10-20% of the expert's practice consisted of reviewing records for insurance companies; and (4) the expert's yearly salary was based in part on his insurance consulting work. Id. Based on these facts, the Yoho Court found that the expert had a substantial connection to the insurance company and therefore, the trial court erred in barring admission of evidence of insurance. Id. Todd showed, through payment records and the testimony of Potts, that Dr. Friedman earned approximately $50,000 from State Farm during calendar years 2003-2005 based on work on eighteen claims, but presented no evidence as to Dr. Friedman's total earnings during that period. Moreover, unlike Yoho, the evidence appears to show that Dr. Friedman was paid an expert fee rather than having an employment relationship with State Farm. In short, the evidence presented by Todd does not show as strong a connection between the expert and the insurance company as in Yoho and we cannot conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court.