Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)

Citation: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Parent Document: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2011-11-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗

Full Text

1,375 chars

¶11 ER 411 generally prohibits the introduction of evidence that a person did or did not possess liability insurance as proof that the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Bacon, 127 Wn.2d 50, 55, 896 P.2d 673 (1995) (noting that in general, evidence regarding availability of insurance is inadmissible on the *8issue of negligence under ER 411); Todd v. Harr, Inc., 69 Wn.2d 166, 168, 417 P.2d 945 (1966) (holding that whether or not a personal injury defendant carries liability insurance is immaterial); Kappelman v. Lutz, 141 Wn. App. 580, 590, 170 P.3d 1189 (2007) (“[T]he fact that a defendant in a personal injury case carries liability insurance is not material to the questions of negligence and damages.”), aff’d, 167 Wn.2d 1, 217 P.3d 286 (2009); Lopez-Stayer v. Pitts, 122 Wn. App. 45, 51 n.5, 93 P.3d 904 (2004) (“ER 411 restricts evidence of a defendant’s insurance coverage or the lack of such coverage as proof of negligence or other wrongdoing.”). A party may introduce evidence of another’s liability insurance, however, when such evidence is offered to prove matters other than the party’s wrongdoing, including proof of agency, ownership, or control; or bias or prejudice of a witness; or to rebut an element of a claim. Goodwin, 127 Wn.2d at 55 (citing Kubista v. Romaine, 87 Wn.2d 62, 69, 549 P.2d 491 (1976)); ER 411.

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text