Court Opinion

ID: 9722577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:39:52.597356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:37.331091
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority because I believe it would be a fraud upon the jury not to let them know the entire truth. The direct inquiry by the jury concerning insurance reveals there is a pervasive commonality concerning automobile insurance in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. We live in a state where liability insurance is compulsory and most jurors operate motor vehicles.
In paying for insurance, jurors are made aware of the direct correlation between premiums and losses, especially since insurance companies advertise to protest jury awards. Today liability insurance is prevalent, and jurors likely assume insurance is involved in vehicular accidents. Prejudice should no longer be presumed merely because insurance is mentioned. When the rule against mentioning insurance originated, most people neither owned nor operated motor vehicles and insurance was not common.
After all, Louisiana has a direct action statute in which insurance companies may be named as a party along with the defendant and the sky has not fallen yet.