This article identifies a major concern in jury trials regarding Alabama auto accident claims. Under Alabama law, a defendant's auto liability insurance is inadmissible at trial. Ironically, a defendant may introduce evidence that a plaintiff had health insurance that offset his or her medical expenses. This article explains the practical ramifications that plaintiffs face when a defendant's insurance coverage is shielded from the jury.
In any jury trial regarding an Alabama auto accident claim, a juror would not likely be surprised to hear testimony regarding the injured party’s hospital expenses and medical bills. During trial, a juror would likely also not be surprised to hear that the plaintiff’s health insurer paid a small portion of the fees. However, that same juror would surely be shocked to learn that a key piece of information from the claim will never be admitted into evidence—the defendant’s automobile liability insurance coverage.
Under Alabama law, a plaintiff is barred from mentioning, implying, or even insinuating that a defendant has auto insurance that will cover a favorable verdict for the plaintif
f. Not only is such information prohibited, most judges will declare a mistrial if a defendant’s insurance coverage “sneaks” into a trial.
The rationale behind the exclusion from the defendant’s insurance coverage at trial is that the mere mentioning of a defendant’s insurance coverage may inflame the jury to over-compensate the plaintiff for his injuries.
Ironically, evidence that the plaintiff’s health insurance paid a portion of his medical expenses is admissible, and often used to argue that the plaintiff wasn’t actually damaged. However, such arguments overlook the fact that the injury victim’s health insurer will likely raise his or her premiums as a result for paying expenses caused by someone else.
While some argue that keeping a defendant’s insurance coverage from the jury has little to no effect on verdicts, studies show that when such information is withheld, jurors are more likely to believe that the a verdict in favor of the plaintiff will cause financial distress for the defendant. Therefore, in theory, a juror is more likely to either return a verdict for the defendant or award a significantly smaller amount to the injured party. Unfortunately, jurors often fail to realize that very few jury verdicts actually cause a defendant to pay any money from his or her own pocket.
As a result, many Alabama car wreck lawyers are beginning to favor bench trials over jury trials. Despite the same evidentiary standards for both bench and jury trials, a veteran judge will know that an insurance policy, and not an individual defendant, will likely cover the damages at issue. Therefore, a bench trial may guard a personal injury claimant from an unfavorable jury verdict based solely on a jury’s perceived financial sympathy of a defendant.
