Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Williams v. McCoy | 550 S.E. 2d 796 (2001)

Under Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and its state law equivalents, evidence of insurance isn’t admissible to prove whether a person acted negligently.1 However, this evidence may be admissible for another purpose.2 In the 2001 case Williams versus McCoy, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina considered whether evidence that the plaintiff hired her attorney after being approached by the defendant’s insurance adjuster was admissible under Rule 411.

In 1997, Joanne Williams was driving her vehicle when she was involved in an automobile accident with another driver, Mia McCoy. Following the accident, Williams was taken to the emergency room and released. Four days later, Williams visited a chiropractor.

Subsequently, Williams sued McCoy in superior court for negligence. Prior to trial, McCoy filed a motion in limine under Rule 411, asking the court to order Williams not to testify at trial that McCoy had insurance or to reference any conversations Williams had with McCoy’s insurance adjusters. The court granted the motion and Williams objected, arguing that the order was prejudicial because she wouldn’t be allowed to explain why she hired an attorney if McCoy so inquired. The court reserved ruling on Williams’s objections until the question was raised at trial.

During trial, McCoy’s attorney asked Williams on cross-examination if she retained her attorney prior to going to the chiropractor. Williams’s attorney objected, but the court overruled the objection and ordered Williams to answer. Williams stated, quote, “No, in fact, I was told not to talk about insurance,” unquote. Following the exchange, the court excused the jury and reiterated to Williams that she couldn’t testify as to McCoy’s insurance. Williams’s attorney requested permission to allow Williams to explain why she hired an attorney, arguing that McCoy’s attorney was trying to prejudice Williams by suggesting that she was litigious. The court allowed Williams to explain her answer on voir dire, without the jury present, but instructed her that mentioning insurance in front of the jury again would result in a mistrial and contempt of court.

Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Williams, awarding her $3,000 in damages. Williams moved for a new trial, but the court denied the motion and entered judgment on the verdict. Williams then appealed to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть