“Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or — if controverted — proving agency, ownership, or control.” MRE 411. See also MCL 500.3030, which precludes reference to the insurer or the question of carrying insurance during the course of a trial, except as otherwise provided by law.
“It has been repeatedly held that it is reversible error to intentionally interject the subject of insurance if the sole purpose is to inflame the passions of the jury so as to increase the size of the verdict. On the other hand, it is not reversible error if the subject is only incidentally brought into the trial, is only casually mentioned, or is used in good faith for purposes other than to inflame the passions of the jury.” Cacavas v Bennett, 37 Mich App 599, 604 (1972) (internal citations omitted).
“References to the insurance coverage of either party during voir dire is presumptively improper. However, this presumption may be rebutted and any error regarded as harmless.” Phillips v Mazda Motor Mfg (USA) Corp, 204 Mich App 401, 411 (1994) (internal citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 45 (2004).1 Offending counsel must overcome, “by a persuasive showing, a presumption that his remarks were prejudicially improper.” Kokinakes v British Leyland, Ltd, 124 Mich App 650, 652-653 (1983).
Committee Tip:
MRE 407–MRE 411 serve societal policy goals easily gleaned from their text (e.g. society desires the repair of defective properties so a party may not be penalized, from an evidentiary proof standpoint, for having done so). But the protection in these rules is limited. Discerning the purpose for admission of these forms of evidence is crucial in determining to include or exclude the evidence. These rules—by no means—contain blanket prohibitions.