Lacher v. Anderson
1994 N.D. LEXIS 264, 526 N.W.2d 108, 1994 WL 708984 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Evidence that a statement-taker is employed by a liability insurer is inadmissible to show bias under Rule 411 if the witness does not dispute making the statement or its accuracy, as the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Facts:
- Joan Lacher attended a bridge club gathering at the Andersons' home.
- While searching for a bathroom, Joan opened a door, stepped into darkness, and fell down a flight of stairs, suffering injuries.
- Eight days later, while Joan was hospitalized, Bob Smith visited her to take a statement.
- Joan voluntarily gave Smith a tape-recorded statement describing the accident, in which she claimed she had been to the house 'at least a dozen times.'
- Smith later had this tape recording transcribed.
- Upon later recollection, Joan claimed she was mistaken regarding the number of times she had visited the home, though she did not deny making the original statement to Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- The Lachers filed a personal injury and loss of consortium lawsuit against the Andersons in the District Court.
- During trial, the Andersons used the transcribed hospital statement to impeach Joan Lacher's testimony.
- The Lachers attempted to introduce evidence that the statement-taker worked for the Andersons' insurer, but the trial court excluded this evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the Andersons were not negligent.
- The District Court entered judgment dismissing the action and awarded deposition costs to the Andersons.
- The Lachers appealed the judgment and the award of costs to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of an investigator's employment with a defendant's insurance company when the plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of the statement recorded by that investigator?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sandstrom
No, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence because the investigator's bias was irrelevant where the statement's accuracy was not contested. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, distinguishing this case from precedent where insurance evidence was admissible. Generally, Rule 411 prohibits evidence of liability insurance to prove negligence but allows it to show bias. However, this exception is subject to Rule 403, which balances probative value against unfair prejudice. Here, Joan Lacher admitted she made the statement and did not claim it was transcribed incorrectly; she simply argued she was mistaken at the time. Therefore, the credibility of Smith (the insurance adjuster) was 'imaginary' and not at issue. Introducing his employment would have prejudiced the jury by revealing insurance coverage without offering any probative value regarding the truthfulness of the statement. Additionally, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs for discovery depositions not used at trial, as they were 'obtained for use' in the litigation.
Analysis:
This case refines the boundaries of the evidentiary 'bias exception' regarding insurance coverage. While North Dakota precedent (Filloon v. Stenseth) established that insurance evidence can be admissible to show a witness's bias, Lacher limits this by requiring a genuine dispute regarding the witness's credibility or the integrity of the evidence they collected. If a party admits they made a statement but simply claims they were factually mistaken at the time, the potential bias of the person who recorded the statement is legally irrelevant. This prevents plaintiffs from using the 'bias' exception as a pretext to inject the prejudicial topic of insurance coverage into a negligence trial when the adjuster's conduct is not actually in question.
