Carrier v. Starnes
463 S.E.2d 393, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 895, 120 N.C. App. 513 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a party's liability insurance, though generally inadmissible to prove negligence, is admissible under Rule of Evidence 411 when offered for a collateral purpose, such as to show the bias or prejudice of a witness who has a financial or employment relationship with the insurance carrier.
Facts:
- Minnie A. Carrier was a passenger in a car driven by Wanda Tuttle.
- A vehicle driven by Clyde Darrick Starnes collided with the car in which Carrier was a passenger.
- Carrier alleged she sustained personal injuries to her back, neck, right arm, and hand in the collision.
- Nationwide Insurance Company, Starnes's liability insurance carrier, hired a private investigator, Kenneth Holmes, to conduct surveillance on Carrier.
- Holmes videotaped Carrier performing various physical activities, such as mowing the lawn and pulling weeds, to document her physical condition.
- Holmes was paid $40 per hour for his surveillance work and was also compensated at the same rate for his services at trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Minnie A. Carrier (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Clyde Darrick Starnes (defendant) in trial court for personal injuries from a car accident.
- At trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to prohibit any mention of his insurance carrier's role in hiring the private investigator who created a surveillance videotape.
- The trial court partially granted the motion but ruled that the plaintiff could ask the investigator who had hired him.
- During cross-examination of the investigator, the plaintiff inquired about his financial relationship with Nationwide Insurance Company, and the defendant's objection was overruled.
- The defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds that prejudicial insurance information had been admitted, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $50,000.
- Starnes (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does North Carolina Rule of Evidence 411 permit a plaintiff in a personal injury action to cross-examine a defense witness about their employment and payment by the defendant's liability insurance carrier for the purpose of showing the witness's potential bias?
Opinions:
Majority - Cozort, Judge
Yes, Rule 411 permits a plaintiff to cross-examine a defense witness about their employment by the defendant's insurance carrier to show bias. While Rule 411 generally bars evidence of liability insurance to prove negligent conduct, it explicitly allows such evidence when offered for another purpose, such as proving the bias or prejudice of a witness. Here, the private investigator, Mr. Holmes, provided substantive eyewitness testimony beyond merely authenticating the videotape, such as his personal observations of the plaintiff's physical abilities. By offering substantive testimony, Holmes placed his own credibility at issue. His financial interest, stemming from being hired and paid by Nationwide Insurance Company, is a classic form of bias that the plaintiff was entitled to explore on cross-examination. Even if his testimony had been limited to authenticating the video, his role in choosing what to film and what not to film reflects the assignment given by the insurance company, making his potential bias a relevant issue for the jury to consider. The trial court's limiting instruction, which told the jury to consider the insurance evidence only as it related to witness bias, properly mitigated any potential for unfair prejudice.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'bias' exception to the general prohibition against introducing evidence of liability insurance in negligence cases. It clarifies that when an insurance company is not just a passive indemnitor but an active participant in evidence gathering through paid investigators, that relationship is not shielded from the jury. The decision empowers attorneys to impeach the credibility of investigators, experts, and other witnesses paid by an opposing party's insurer, ensuring that juries can weigh testimony with a full understanding of a witness's potential financial motives. This prevents a defendant from presenting evidence gathered by a seemingly neutral party when that party is, in fact, an agent of the insurance company with a vested interest in the case's outcome.
