Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether 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.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
Whether someone has liability insurance cannot be used in court to show they were careless or did something wrong. For example, if a driver had car insurance, that fact alone cannot be used to suggest they were at fault in an accident.
However, insurance information can come up in court for other reasons. If someone's connection to a company or property is in question, insurance records might help show who owned or controlled something. Insurance details can also be used to show that a witness might be biased, such as when a witness works for the insurance company involved in the case.
Summary generated March 09, 2026
Committee Notes
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The courts have with substantial unanimity rejected evidence of liability insurance for the purpose of proving fault, and absence of liability insurance as proof of lack of fault. At best the inference of fault from the fact of insurance coverage is a tenuous one, as is its converse. More important, no doubt, has been the feeling that knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds. McCormick § 168; Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 761. The rule is drafted in broad terms so as to include contributory negligence or other fault of a plaintiff as well as fault of a defendant.
The second sentence points out the limits of the rule, using well established illustrations. Id.
For similar rules see Uniform Rule 54; California Evidence Code § 1155; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure § 60–454; New Jersey Evidence Rule 54.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 411 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules 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 evidence admissibility.
Rule 411 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 the general principles of Rules 402, 403, 801, etc.
The information on this site is for general reference only and is not legal advice.
Rule text may not reflect the most recent amendments. Always verify against official
sources before relying on any rule in a legal matter.
By using this site, you agree to our
Terms of Service and Privacy Policy,
whether or not you click this button.