Court Opinion

ID: 9578722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:47:50.401817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:18.872033
License: Public Domain

Justice BEATTY.
I respectfully dissent. Dr. Friedman was employed by State Farm on eighteen different occasions over a three year period immediately prior to trial. This employment relationship clearly constitutes a substantial connection between State Farm and Dr. Friedman. Evidence of this substantial connection should have been admitted to show possible bias on Dr. Friedman’s part. See Yoho v. Thompson, 345 S.C. 361, 548 S.E.2d 584 (2001) (holding evidence of a defense expert’s medical consulting work for an insurance carrier was admissible, even though the evidence contained a reference to insurance, because considerable latitude is allowed during cross-examination to test a witness’s bias, prejudice, or credibility).
The probative value of this evidence far outweighed its prejudicial effect. See id. at 366, 548 S.E.2d at 586 (stating that a substantial connection between an expert and a defendant’s insurer is sufficiently probative on the issue of bias so as to outweigh the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the fact that the jury knows the defendant carries liability insurance). Considering the fact that liability insurance has been required in South Carolina for decades, see S.C.Code Ann. §§ 56-10-10, -20, -220 (2006), it is highly probable that every juror already knew that insurance was available. The only unknown was the name of the carrier. Therefore, it is probable that there was no prejudicial effect to be concerned with.
Connecting Dr. Friedman to the insurance carrier was highly probative on the issue of his bias in favor of the insurance carrier, State Farm, and Joyner. In my view there was very little, if any, unfair prejudice to Joyner.
I concur in the remaining issues.