N.M. R. Evid. 11-411
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove that 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 proving agency, ownership, or control.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-411
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-411 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
Rule 11-411 NMRA previously provided that evidence was not excluded if offered for a purpose not explicitly prohibited by the rule. To improve the language of the rule, it now provides that the court may admit evidence if offered for a permissible purpose. There is no intent to change the process for admitting evidence covered by the rule. It remains the case that if offered for an impermissible purpose, it must be excluded, and if offered for a purpose not barred by the rule, its admissibility remains governed by other rules of evidence.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "the person acted" for "he acted" in the first sentence. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule has codified the general rule that evidence that a defendant carries liability insurance is inadmissible in an action for negligence because it is immaterial to the issues tried and prejudicial. Cardoza v. Town of Silver City, 1981-NMCA-061, 96 N.M. 130, 628 P.2d 1126, cert. denied, 96 N.M. 116, 628 P.2d 686. This rule is a particularized application of the balancing test required by Rule 11-403 NMRA, and reflects a decision that the prejudicial effect of disclosure along with the injection of confusing collateral issues outweighs its probative value. Martinez v. Reid, 2002-NMSC-015, 132 N.M. 237, 46 P.3d 1237. Evidence that party is insured is generally inadmissible because it is immaterial to the issues tried and prejudicial, but insurance may be mentioned when it is highly relevant to an issue in the lawsuit. Mac Tyres, Inc. v. Vigil, 1979-NMSC-010, 92 N.M. 446, 589 P.2d 1037. Trial court has great deal of discretion in applying this rule and Rule 11-403 NMRA and its ruling can only be held to be reversible error in the event of an abuse of that discretion. Mac Tyres, Inc. v. Vigil, 1979-NMSC-010, 92 N.M. 446, 589 P.2d 1037. Punitive damages liability coverage is not an asset which can be used to measure true punishment and, therefore, it should not be considered by the jury in assessing a defendant's financial standing. Baker v. Armstrong, 1987-NMSC-101, 106 N.M. 395, 744 P.2d 170. Exclusion of evidence of insurance coverage may result in reversible error only when, in addition to abuse of discretion by the trial court, prejudice from the exclusion is found. Davila v. Bodelson, 1985-NMCA-072, 103 N.M. 243, 704 P.2d 1119. Rules for determining admissibility of evidence of insurance coverage. Martinez v. Teague, 1981-NMCA-043, 96 N.M. 446, 631 P.2d 1314. Insurance evidence admissible except on issue of negligence. - Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is admissible when offered for any purpose which is relevant and basic to a fair trial, except upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Grammer v. Kohlhaas Tank & Equip. Co., 1979-NMCA-149, 93 N.M. 685, 604 P.2d 823, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 628, 614 P.2d 545 (1980). Insurance-disclosing evidence is prohibited when the proponent is plainly offering it to show that the insured party was any more or less negligent or wrongful by virtue of his insured status. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 1984-NMSC-045, 101 N.M. 148, 679 P.2d 816. Insurance evidence admissible to rebut earlier testimony. - Evidence of insurance, not used to show the wrongful acts of the insured, is admissible to rebut the discrediting effect and correct any wrong impression of earlier testimony by a witness. Martinez v. Teague, 1981-NMCA-043, 96 N.M. 446, 631 P.2d 1314. Insurance evidence relevant on issue of damages. - Evidence that plaintiffs in a personal injury suit filed a proof of loss for injuries resulting from a later accident was relevant on the issue of damages, and the collateral source rule was not a proper basis for excluding the tendered evidence. Selgado v. Commercial Whse. Co., 1974 -NMCA-093, 86 N.M. 633, 526 P.2d 430. Insurance evidence relevant to establish family purpose theory. - Fact defendant's father held an insurance policy on the vehicle driven by his daughter was admissible for purpose of establishing father's responsibility for his daughter's negligence on the family purpose theory. Bloom v. Lewis, 1980-NMCA-155, 97 N.M. 435, 640 P.2d 935. Unfair prejudice remaining consideration. - Even if evidence of insurance is relevant, it still may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Phillips v. Smith, 1974-NMCA-064, 87 N.M. 19, 528 P.2d 663, cert. denied, 87 N.M. 5, 528 P.2d 649, overruled on other grounds, Baxter v. Gannaway, 1991-NMCA-120, 113 N.M. 45, 822 P.2d 1128. See Rule 11-403 NMRA. Prompt admonishment following improper statement avoids mistrial. - Where a defense counsel's reference to insurance in an opening statement is improper, prompt admonishment thereof by the court is sufficient to avoid a mistrial because the admonishment eliminates any prejudicial effect. Cardoza v. Town of Silver City, 1981-NMCA-061, 96 N.M. 130, 628 P.2d 1126, cert. denied, 96 N.M. 116, 628 P.2d 686. Irresponsive or inadvertent answer not grounds for mistrial. - If a lawyer propounds a question which calls for proper evidence, the fact that an irresponsive or inadvertent answer includes a reference to insurance will not be grounds for declaring a mistrial. Cardoza v. Town of Silver City, 1981-NMCA-061, 96 N.M. 130, 628 P.2d 1126, cert. denied, 96 N.M. 116, 628 P.2d 686. Prejudicial for party to intentionally offer insurance evidence. - To be prejudicial, a party must offer evidence that a defendant is covered by insurance, or intentionally use some circuitous method of informing the jury of liability insurance, followed by the admission thereof. Cardoza v. Town of Silver City, 1981-NMCA-061, 96 N.M. 130, 628 P.2d 1126, cert. denied, 96 N.M. 116, 628 P.2d 686. Bifurcation of trial of negligence and insurance contract claims. - The trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to bifurcate the plaintiff's negligence claims against the defendant from the plaintiff's contract claims against an uninsured motorist carrier and the carrier's subrogation claims, and in permitting the carrier to participate in the trial, since it had the effect of injecting liability insurance into the trial. Sena v. N.M. State Police, 1995-NMCA-003, 119 N.M. 471, 892 P.2d 604. Joinder not to be disclosed to jury. - When subrogated insurers are required by Rule 1-017 NMRA to be joined as parties and the case is to be tried before a jury, the fact of the insurer's joinder is not to be disclosed to the jury; if it is the insured who has been joined, the requirement shall be the same. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 1984-NMSC-045, 101 N.M. 148, 679 P.2d 816. Where a parent sued the driver and the insurer for negligence arising from a car accident, and the insurer sought to prohibit disclosure of its presence to the jury, the Safeco (1984-NMSC-045, 101 N.M. 148, 679 P.2d 816) procedure should be used in cases where joinder of a defendant's liability insurer was required; where, however, this rule would allow disclosure of insurance to the jury, the need for bifurcation was diminished, and the trial court would retain discretion not to bifurcate the trial. Martinez v. Reid, 2002-NMSC-015, 132 N.M. 237, 46 P.3d 1237. Law reviews. - For article, "The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under the New Mexico and Federal Rules of Evidence," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 187 (1976). For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Evidence," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 159 (1981). For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Torts," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 217 (1981). For article, "Evidence I," see 13 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1983). For note commenting on Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 101 N.M. 148, 679 P.2d 816 (1984), see 16 N.M.L. Rev. 119 (1986). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 483 et seq. Counsel's argument or comment stating or implying that defendant is not insured and will have to pay verdict himself as prejudicial error, 68 A.L.R.4th 954. Propriety and prejudicial effect of trial counsel's reference or suggestion in medical malpractice case that defendant is insured, 71 A.L.R.4th 1025. Admissibility, after enactment of Rule 411, Federal Rules of Evidence, of evidence of liability insurance in negligence actions, 40 A.L.R. Fed. 541. 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 208; 98 C.J.S. Witnesses §§ 567, 568.