Opinion ID: 2395116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: voir dire on insurance

Text: Jones next contends that the trial court erred in allowing Johnson to voir dire prospective jurors as to whether they believed jury verdicts affected their insurance premiums. It is well settled Arkansas law that if a party's counsel acts in good faith, he may, in one form or another, question prospective jurors during the voir dire with respect to their interest in, or connection with, liability insurance companies. Dedmon v. Thalheimer, 226 Ark. 402, 290 S.W.2d 16 (1956). In Dedmon , the trial court's ruling to prohibit plaintiff's counsel from questioning the jury panel with respect to insurance was reversed. The proposed question at issue was: Have you ever been in the employ of any liability insurance company, or do you own any stock in any liability insurance company at the present time, or are you insured with any mutual benefit liability company where your premiums are determined upon the size of judgments given in personal injury actions for the previous year? Id. at 403, 290 S.W.2d at 16. Our rationale and standard for allowing this question was succinctly stated: In cases where the defendant is covered by liability insurance, the plaintiff might want to excuse any one that he suspects may be either biased or prejudiced where insurance is involved; and he would have a perfect right to exercise a peremptory challenge for that reason, if he so desired. The test of whether counsel may ask questions of veniremen in regard to insurance is whether the questions are propounded in good faith. If counsel, in good faith, thinks that liability insurance is involved, then he may ask questions calculated to bring to light any bias or prejudice a venireman may have for or against insurance companies. Id. at 403-04, 290 S.W.2d at 17. In King v. Westlake, 264 Ark. 555, 572 S.W.2d 841 (1978), we considered as proper the following questions asked by plaintiff's counsel: Q It is improper for either side to imply or suggest that the defendant does or does not have insurance, and the questions I will now direct to you have nothing to do with whether or not the defendant has insurance. The questions I will ask concern your insurance premiums, not insurance in this case. How many of you believe that jury verdicts affect insurance premiums? Q Your insurance premiums may not be affected greatly one way or the other, but will not the verdicts that you render have some effect on your insurance rates? Q The question I have been building up to is this: Assuming that the verdict you render could cost you a little more or a little less money on your insurance premiums, can you listen to the testimony, the statements of counsel, and the instructions and then put aside the financial interest you have in this case because of your insurance premiums and render a verdict? Id. at 559-60, 572 S.W.2d at 844. Prior to these questions, a foundation had been laid by showing that for some time preceding the trial date a number of liability insurance companies had run advertisements in nationally published periodicals with the purpose of informing jurors in general that they were affected by the verdicts they rendered in that such verdicts resulted in increased premiums. In this case, Johnson's counsel, without laying any foundation, read the questions in issue directly from King . This was wrong and contrary to our holding in King . Questions of this nature must be supported by a proper foundation.