This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Here's a plain English summary of this rule.
If someone has liability insurance, that fact usually can't be used as evidence in court to show they were careless or did something wrong. For example, a jury can't hear "the defendant had insurance" as a way to suggest they must have been at fault. The idea is that having insurance doesn't tell you anything about whether someone acted responsibly or not, so it shouldn't influence the jury's decision on that question.
However, this information can still come up in court if it's being used for a different reason. For instance, if the case is about who owns a piece of property, who controls it, or whether a witness might be biased, evidence of insurance can be allowed. The key is why the evidence is being offered. If it's meant to prove fault, it's blocked. If it's meant to prove something else entirely, like ownership or a witness's motive to lie, it may come in.
