Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

In jury trials involving personal injuries, disputes often arise regarding what can be said about insurance during the course of proceedings. Unfortunately, many assumptions about about what can and cannot be said about insurance are based upon evidentiary rule misconceptions rather than upon the actual rules of evidence.

Obviously, what can be said will depend upon the nature of the case. If the claim is a first-party insurance case brought by an insured against her insurer, such as an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim, the insurance company is a party to the action and its identity should be appropriate for discussion as these claims are technically based upon contract. Malott v. State Farm, 798 N.E.2d 924, 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Under these claims, not only can you discuss the identity of the insurance company, but a plaintiff may introduce into evidence portions of the written insurance policy to establish the contract upon which the claim is based. See Ind. Trial Rule 9.2(A) (requiring written contracts to be filed with the complaint and made part of the record). . . . Continue reading Tony Patterson's article Insurance at Trial: What Can You Say? on Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton's Indiana Co-Counsel newsletter for October 2008.

The plaintiff in this case was injured in an automobile accident. The defendant retained a medical expert who offered opinions regarding the plaintiff's injuries during discovery. At trial, the expert testified for the first time that he diagnosed the plaintiff with a degenerative disc disease, which was a material deviation from his prior deposition testimony. As a result of this contradiction, the plaintiff requested a new trial.

The trial court found the defendant committed misconduct by not disclosing its medical expert's new diagnosis prior to trial and granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the trial court's ruling was affirmed, finding that the defendant should have supplemented its medical expert's opinion prior to trial. Nature's Link v. Przbyla, 885 N.E.2d 709, 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).