One of the most difficult things to explain to a client is that at a personal injury trial in North Carolina you cannot mention the defendant’s automobile insurance. The jury is only told the dispute between the injured party and the actual defendant who created the situation. The actual rules of evidence only prohibit the mention of automobile insurance for issues involving ability to pay; however, practically if insurance is mentioned judges are very reluctant to allow any testimony on those issues. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. N.C. R. Evid. § 8C-1,8C-1411N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 8C-1,§ 8C-1,8C-1 Rule 411 The above is the actual rule of evidence used by the courts in determining what witness are allowed to discuss. In Fincher v. Rhyne, 266 N.C. 64, 68-70, 145 S.E.2d 316, 318-20 (1965) the court discussed the general reason why the rule was promulgated and what the court looked at in deciding that you cannot mention automobile insurance in North Carolina. ‘Ordinarily, in the absence of some special circumstance, it is not permissible under our decisions to introduce evidence of the existence of liability insurance or to make any reference thereto in the presence of the jury in the trial of * * * cases’ where the relief sought is damages for injuries caused by negligence. Taylor v. Green, 242 N.C. 156, 87 S.E.2d 11; Jordan v. Maynard, 231 N.C. 101, 56 S.E.2d 26; Duke v. Crippled Children’s Comm., 214 N.C. 570, 199 S.E. 918; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N.C. 266, 136 S.E. 726; Stanley v. Whiteville Lumber Co., 184 N.C. 302, 114 S.E. 385; Lytton v. Marion Manufacturing Co., 157 N.C. 331, 72 S.E. 1055. This rule is almost universal. 21 Appleman: Insurance Law and Practice, s. 12832; Anno.-Informing Jury of Liability Insurance, **31956 A.L.R. 1418; Anno.-Showing as to Liability Insurance, 4 A.L.R.2d 761. Since the enactment of compulsory insurance statutes, it has been held in a few jurisdictions, including California, Georgia and South Carolina, that reference to liability insurance is not error. A.L.R.2d Supplement Service (1960) p. 297. However, our decisions, since the enactment of the Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act of 1957 (G.S. §§ 20-309 to 20-319), have adhered to the general rule above stated. Whitman v. Whitman, 258 N.C. 201, 128 S.E.2d 249 (1962); Greene v. Charlotte Chemical Laboratories, Inc., 254 N.C. 680, 120 S.E.2d 82 (1961); Hoover v. Gregory, 253 N.C. 452, 117 S.E.2d 395, 100 A.L.R.2d 341 (1960). From the opinion in Hoover, Stansbury finds ‘indications that a departure from the rule will not always be censured as severely in the future as it has in the past.’ Stansbury: North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed. s. 88. The existence of insurance covering defendant’s liability in a negligence case is irrelevant to the issues involved. It has no tendency to prove negligence or the quantum of damages. It suggests to the jury that the outcome of the case is immaterial to defendant and the insurer is the real defendant and will have to pay the judgment. It withdraws the real defendant from the case and leads the jury ‘to regard carelessly the legal rights’ of the real defendant. *69 ‘No circumstance, a court has said, is more surely calculated to cause a jury to render a verdict against a defendant, without regard to the sufficiency (weight) of the evidence, than proof that the person against whom such verdict is sought is amply protected by indemnity insurance.’ 56 A.L.R. 1422. These reasons for exclusion are as valid under compulsory coverage as under voluntary insurance. But it is argued that it is unrealistic to attempt to conceal from juries a fact of common knowledge-the compulsory requirement that all vehicles be insured. Liability insurance coverage is required by law in this State, and such requirement is, of course, a matter of common knowledge, but there are many valid reasons for excluding evidence of, or reference to, such coverage in addition to those mentioned above. There are instances in which insurance exists but under the particular circumstances there is no coverage. The limits of coverage vary-the law requires $5000 coverage for injury to one person; all coverage in excess of this amount is voluntary. The jury might infer from the mention of insurance that there is coverage to the extent of the damages prayed for, or they might guess from some reference made that the coverage is only $5000 and be thereby influenced to award inadequate damages. Furthermore, the Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act of 1957 permits the possibility of time gaps in insurance coverage, that is, short periods in which vehicles are uninsured. Faizan v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 47, 55, 118 S.E.2d 303. If it is realistic to allow testimony and references to liability insurance, it would be more realistic to permit the introduction of the terms of the policy and all questions of coverage in the particular case. Such injection of irrelevant issues would be insupportable. The courts cannot, of course, control the deliberations of the jury when they have retired to make up their verdicts, and cannot ‘black out’ segments of their thinking related to matters of common knowledge. But the courts can now, just as effectively as before the enactment of compulsory liability insurance laws, control the trial and exclude irrelevant facts and confine the evidence and the matters arising during the course of the trial to the issues involved. Where testimony is given, or reference is made, indicating directly and as an independent fact that defendant has liability insurance, it is prejudicial, and the court should, upon motion therefor aptly made, withdraw a juror and order a mistrial. Luttrell v. Hardin, supra; Allen v. Garibaldi, 187 N.C. 798, 123 S.E. 66; Stanley v. Whiteville Lumber Co., supra; Lytton v. Marion Manufacturing Co., supra. But there are circumstances in which it is **320 sufficient for the court, in its discretion, because of the incidental nature of the reference, to merely instruct the jury to disregard it. *70 Keller v. Caldwell Furniture Co., 199 N.C. 413, 154 S.E. 674; Lane v. Paschall, 199 N.C. 364, 154 S.E. 626; Fulcher v. Pine Lumber Co., 191 N.C. 408, 132 S.E. 9; Gilland v. Carolina Crushed Stone Co., 189 N.C. 783, 128 S.E. 158; Bryant v. Welch Furniture Co., 186 N.C. 441, 119 S.E. 823; Norris v. Holt-Morgan Mills, 154 N.C. 474, 70 S.E. 912. Fincher v. Rhyne, 266 N.C. 64, 68-70, 145 S.E.2d 316, 318-20 (1965). In 2004 the court still considered the Fincher case as controlling as to automobile insurance.Campbell v. McIlwain, 163 N.C. App. 553, 556-57, 593 S.E.2d 799, 802 (2004) Generally, “[w]here testimony is given, or reference is made, indicating directly and as an independent fact that defendant has liability insurance, it is prejudicial, and the court should, upon motion therefor *557 aptly made, withdraw a juror and order a mistrial.” Fincher v. Rhyne, 266 N.C. 64, 69, 145 S.E.2d 316, 319 (1965). However, ” there are circumstances in which it is sufficient for the court, in its discretion, because of the incidental nature of the reference, to merely instruct the jury to disregard it.” Id. at 69, 145 S.E.2d at 319-20. ” The decision of whether a mistrial is required to prevent undue prejudice to a party or to further the ends of justice is a decision vested in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Medlin v. FYCO, Inc., 139 N.C.App. 534, 540, 534 S.E.2d 622, 626 (2000), disc. rev. denied, 353 N.C. 377, 547 S.E.2d 12 (2001) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a witness’ mention at trial of defendant’s relationship with defendant’s insurer). Campbell v. McIlwain, 163 N.C. App. 553, 556-57, 593 S.E.2d 799, 802 (2004)
Focused On Serving Your Needs

"UPDATE: To protect your safety during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, we offer video conferencing, as well as telephone conferences, in place of face-to-face meetings. Please contact our office today to set up a remote consultation."
Recent Blog Posts
Personal Injury Trial: Evidence of Automobile Insurance
Categories
- Actos (3)
- Auto Accident Law (40)
- Blog (37)
- Business Or Tourist Affected By Power Outage (1)
- Car Accidents (105)
- Car Crash? What To Do Next (1)
- Choosing Your North Carolina Injury Or Disability Attorney (1)
- Civil Trial (64)
- Damages (1)
- David Bridgman Joins O'Malley Tunstall (1)
- DraftKings Or FanDuel Fantasy Sports (1)
- Drug Maker Failed To Warn Cancer Patients Of Permanent Hair Loss (1)
- E-cigarette Exploding Causing Burns (1)
- Federal Social Security Disability Cases (1)
- Firm News (6)
- Haeco Leaked Confidential Employee Information (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Infection Following Hip Or Knee Replacement Surgery (1)
- Injured By A Drunk Driver (3)
- Insurance Company (1)
- Joe Tunstall And Susan O’Malley Selected 2019 NC Super Lawyers (1)
- Legally Speaking (119)
- Long-term Disability (5)
- Low Testosterone (1)
- Motor Vehicle Accidents (16)
- Move Over! Bill Requires Slow Drivers To Move Over From Left Lane (1)
- Nash County Beta Club Going To National Convention (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Medical Malpractice Verdict Tunstall (1)
- NONE (1)
- North Carolina Farmers With Syngenta Corn Claims (1)
- North Carolina Injury Attorney (1)
- O'Malley Tunstall Referrals: The Best Advertising (1)
- Pedestrian Accident (1)
- Personal Injuries (4)
- Personal Injury (3)
- Personal Injury Law (65)
- Premises Liability (20)
- Products Liability (42)
- Protect Yourself, Keep Vehicle Under Control During MVA (1)
- Second Wreck – Use The Same Attorney? (1)
- Serious Heart Or Kidney Problems On Invokana Or Canagliflozin (1)
- Serious Injury? Need NC Social Security, Workers' Compensation And Auto Accident Lawyer? (1)
- Settlement Child Hurt Bounce House Inflatable (1)
- Sexual Enhancement (1)
- Slip Trip Fall (1)
- Social Security (11)
- Social Security (8)
- Social Security Disability (22)
- Social Security Disability Backlog 2017 (1)
- Social Security Disability Benefits (1)
- Social Security Disability If You Cannot Use Both Hands (1)
- Social Security Disability Limited Time To Apply For Benefits (1)
- Social Security Law (55)
- Social Security Wait Times (2)
- SSDI (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Trips Slips And Falls At Stores (1)
- Truck Accidents (2)
- Truck Accidents (63)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2015 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2017 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Selected To 2015 List Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Tunstall Selected To The 2017 List As Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Wags 4 Tags (1)
- Wear Helmet While Riding Horses (1)
- Winter Driving Safety (1)
- Workers' Compensation (63)
- Workers' Compensation Law (17)
- Xarelto (1)
Archives
- January 2021 (2)
- November 2020 (1)
- October 2020 (2)
- September 2020 (5)
- August 2020 (6)
- July 2020 (6)
- June 2020 (7)
- May 2020 (6)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (8)
- February 2020 (6)
- January 2020 (6)
- December 2019 (7)
- November 2019 (5)
- October 2019 (5)
- September 2019 (7)
- August 2019 (7)
- July 2019 (6)
- June 2019 (5)
- May 2019 (6)
- April 2019 (10)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (6)
- January 2019 (7)
- December 2018 (5)
- November 2018 (5)
- October 2018 (6)
- September 2018 (3)
- August 2018 (9)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (9)
- May 2018 (8)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (9)
- February 2018 (9)
- January 2018 (11)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (9)
- October 2017 (11)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (11)
- July 2017 (9)
- June 2017 (8)
- May 2017 (12)
- April 2017 (10)
- March 2017 (11)
- February 2017 (9)
- January 2017 (10)
- December 2016 (10)
- November 2016 (5)
- October 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (8)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (3)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (4)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (4)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (8)
- December 2014 (3)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (3)
- July 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (6)
- March 2014 (6)
- February 2014 (4)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (4)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (5)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (2)
- December 2012 (7)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (5)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (2)
- June 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (5)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (8)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (8)
- August 2011 (9)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (4)


