M Civ JI 3.06 Whether Party Is Insured Is Irrelevant

Whether a party is insured has no bearing whatever on any issue that you must decide. Don't even discuss or speculate about insurance.

Note on Use

This instruction is to be used only where the subject of liability insurance has been brought out during the trial and has no bearing on any of the issues. It has no application, for example, in an action on an insurance policy.

Comment

Rule 411 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence provides that” [ e ]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.” See also MCL 500.3030. MRE 411 further provides that “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.” See also Gegan v Kemp, 302 Mich 218 (1942) (insurance adjuster’s statements used for impeachment).

Where insurance coverage of a party has been improperly disclosed, an instruction that it has no bearing on the case is proper. Ehlers v Barbeau, 291 Mich 528 (1939); see also Cassidy v McGovern, 86 Mich App 321 (1978) (tort action under Michigan no-fault act).

The January 2024 amendments are housekeeping changes reflecting stylistic revisions to the Michigan Rules of Evidence that became effective January 1, 2024.

History

M Civ JI 3.06 was SJI 1.01(7). Amended September 2007, January 2024.