I know that this sounds insane to a rational person but as a trial lawyer I am not allowed to mention, during trial, that the defendant had auto insurance at the time of the accident. Pursuant to Colorado Rule of Evidence 411, “evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible…” My clients are also not allowed to testify at trial about the fact that the defendant had insurance at the time. Even if my client accidently mentions the defendant’s insurance company, the defendant’s attorney would move for a mistrial. There are exceptions to this rule but attorneys must tread lightly or risk a mistrial.

I have always felt that jurors are smart enough to know that in most cases the defendant probably had insurance at the time of the accident and that he is not going to pay the judgment out of his own pocket. But I also think that the jurors don’t like the fact that we don’t address this issue and may think we are trying to hide important information from them. I once heard jurors say that “we knew that the defendant must have had insurance but we were afraid to give the plaintiff what she deserved because they may raise our premiums”. I appreciate this fear because everyday we hear how people with health insurance are paying for those who don’t have it. But with automobile insurance it simply does not work this way and jurors should feel free to award the plaintiff the full amount that she deserves.

This is why it is so important to fight the insurance companies, prior to filing a lawsuit, and position your case as aggressively as possible so that we can get the most money for you without having to go to trial. However, in some case the insurance companies just wont do what is right and you have to sue the defendant. In those cases, we continue to aggressively pursue your case and fight for what you deserve and if necessary some day we may have to ask the jury for justice.