Court Opinion

ID: 9791200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:26.939973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.722777
License: Public Domain

PAYNE, Justice, specially concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority. I disagree, however, with the general policy barring the admission of evidence relating to the existence of a defendant’s insurance coverage. While I recognize a majority of jurisdictions continue to perpetuate this bar, they have done so based on the unsubstantiated fear that juries would return verdicts against defendants on insufficient evidence or for larger amounts if they knew the insurance company and not the defendant were to pay. See Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 761 (1949). A review of the cases in those states with direct action statutes, like Louisiana and Wisconsin, show these fears to be unfounded. Evidence of insurance coverage should be treated as any other evidence, with its admissibility dependent upon the rules of evidence and not an artificial, absolute bar.