Why Is Insurance Kept Hidden in Personal Injury Trials?

The recent shooting of an insurance executive in New York City has thrust a spotlight on the deep distrust many in the public hold toward insurance companies. At the crime scene, shell casings were inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose”—a chilling nod to tactics long associated with the insurance defense industry. These words, often used to describe strategies to undermine and devalue the claims of injured victims, were immediately recognizable by many in the insurance industry and legal community. They serve as a stark reminder of the negative perception surrounding insurance companies and their role in the courtroom.

Many would be surprised to learn that the insurance industry is so reviled that a judge can order lawyers not to even mention the word “insurance” before a jury. Can such a rule, which avoids transparency, really be fair? The rules followed in every courtroom prevent jurors from knowing that the defendant has insurance coverage that could pay for the injured plaintiff’s medical bills and other damages. Jurors remain unaware that the lawyers defending the case are, in most instances, working for an insurance company rather than an individual defendant. This deliberate concealment, deeply rooted in case law, significantly influences how justice is pursued and perceived.

This blog is part of the “Delay, Deny, Defend” series, which explores the strategies and practices of the insurance defense industry. These blogs aim to shed light on the often-hidden tactics used by insurance companies, offering insights from experienced trial attorneys and real-world examples.

The Hidden Role of Insurance in Personal Injury Trials

In personal injury trials in Illinois, the defendant is often represented by a defense attorney provided by their insurance company. The jury, however, is led to believe that the defendant is acting alone, bearing the financial and emotional burden of the trial. This creates a narrative of individual accountability, shielding the insurance company from scrutiny and often garnering sympathy for the defendant.

Why Is Insurance Excluded in Courtrooms?

The rationale, according to legal precedent, is that mentioning insurance could prejudice the jury. Jurors might assume that the defendant’s ability to pay damages is unlimited or that an insurance company will foot the bill regardless of the outcome. This could lead to higher awards for plaintiffs, which courts have historically sought to avoid.

Adding to this, the public’s distrust of insurance companies creates an additional layer of complexity. While the public has grown skeptical of insurance industry practices, this mistrust cannot be addressed directly in courtrooms because jurors are not even informed of the insurance company’s financial interest in the outcome. As a result, the financial entity most capable of compensating injured victims remains shielded, while jurors focus their attention on an individual defendant, unaware of the hidden dynamics at play.

The Prejudicial Power of Insurance in Jury Trials

The mere mention of insurance coverage in a personal injury trial is considered so prejudicial to insurance companies that courts across the country have developed case law to shield their very existence from juries. This legal framework ensures that jurors remain unaware that insurance companies are the true parties of interest, thus preserving their protected position in litigation.

To maintain this advantage, insurance companies employ entire law firms composed of attorneys who work exclusively for them. These firms often operate under a name taken from one of the attorneys, giving the appearance of independence. Known as staff counsel, these attorneys represent the insurance company’s interests while concealing the insurer’s involvement from the jury.

Evidence Rules Protecting Insurance Companies in Illinois

In Illinois, the exclusion of insurance from personal injury trials is well-established under the Illinois Rules of Evidence. In Rule 411, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. However, the rule has an exception when liability insurance is offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. Illinois’ Rule 411 is identical to the federal rules of evidence. These concepts are seen in Imparato v. Rooney, 95 Ill. App. 3d 11 (1981)(evidence that a party has insurance is generally inadmissible because being insured has no bearing on the question of negligence and may result in a higher award); and Lenz v. Julian, 276 Ill. App. 3d 66 (1995) (improper to inform the jury, either directly or indirectly, that a defendant is or is not insured against a judgment that might be entered against him in a negligence action).

Motions in Limine: A Common Defense Tactic

Before a personal injury trial begins, defense attorneys typically file a motion in limine to preclude any mention of insurance during the proceedings. A motion in limine is a pretrial request filed by both the plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel asking the court to rule on the admissibility of certain evidence. In the context of insurance, this motion aims to ensure that jurors remain unaware of the defendant’s insurance coverage.

For example, a standard motion in limine might read:

“The defendant respectfully requests that the court prohibit any reference, direct or indirect, to the existence of liability insurance coverage. Such references are irrelevant to the issues of liability and damages and would unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant.”

Once granted, this motion prevents the plaintiff’s attorney from discussing or implying the presence of insurance at any point during the trial. Violating this order could result in a mistrial, significant sanctions, or both.

How Insurance Exclusion Hurts Plaintiffs

The exclusion of insurance creates a lopsided playing field for plaintiffs. Jurors may feel reluctant to award substantial damages, believing that an individual defendant will be personally responsible for the payment. This perception can lead to unjustly low verdicts, particularly in cases involving catastrophic injuries or significant financial losses.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A plaintiff suffers severe injuries in a car accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defendant has $1 million in liability coverage through their insurance policy. The jury, unaware of this coverage, assumes the defendant will pay damages out of pocket. Sympathetic to the defendant’s perceived financial hardship, the jury awards the plaintiff $100,000—a fraction of what is needed to cover medical bills, lost wages, and ongoing care. The insurance company, meanwhile, escapes accountability, paying a sum far below the policy limit and far below what the plaintiff deserves.

Example of How Even the Mention of Insurance Would Result in a Mistrial

The following example illustrates the lengths to which attorneys go to keep insurance out of the courtroom. In a car accident injury case in Illinois, the plaintiff’s attorney inadvertently mentions during voir dire that the defendant’s attorney works for one of the major automobile insurance carriers. The defense immediately moves for a mistrial, arguing that this statement taints the jury. The judge agrees, dismisses the jury panel, and restarts the trial with strict instructions to avoid any references to insurance. The law compels the judge to order a mistrial to avoid any prejudice against the insurance company, highlighting how courts strictly shield these entities in personal injury cases.

This example demonstrates how seriously courts take the exclusion of insurance. Even a passing comment can derail a trial, emphasizing the extent to which insurance companies are shielded from public scrutiny.

Overcoming Juror Sympathy: Strategies for Trial Attorneys

Experienced Illinois personal injury attorneys understand the challenges posed by the exclusion of insurance and work diligently to counteract the potential sympathy jurors may feel for the defendant seated at the table. These strategies are crucial because they help level the playing field, ensuring that jurors remain focused on the evidence and the plaintiff’s damages rather than being swayed by sympathy for the defendant’s perceived financial or emotional burden. While they cannot reveal the presence of insurance directly, they employ strategies to refocus the jury’s attention on the evidence and the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Humanizing the Plaintiff’s Story

Attorneys often begin by painting a vivid picture of how the injury has affected their client’s life. This might include testimony from family members, friends, or coworkers who can speak to the plaintiff’s physical, emotional, and financial struggles. The goal is to shift the jury’s perspective away from the defendant and onto the plaintiff’s needs.

Focusing on Accountability

Attorneys emphasize the importance of holding the defendant accountable. By presenting evidence that clearly demonstrates negligence, they redirect the jury’s attention to the harm caused and the justice required.

Highlighting Damages with Expert Testimony

Using expert testimony from medical professionals, economists, and vocational rehabilitation specialists, attorneys can quantify the plaintiff’s losses. Detailed evidence of medical expenses, lost income, and future care costs underscores the necessity of a fair award.

Helping Jurors Understand the Role of Money

A critical component of a personal injury trial is helping jurors understand that their role is to determine fair compensation for the harms suffered by the plaintiff. Injury attorneys often emphasize during jury selection and throughout the trial that civil trials are about money—not as a penalty, but as a means to make the plaintiff whole. This reframing helps jurors focus on their responsibility to assign a monetary value that reflects the plaintiff’s losses and future needs.

Leveraging Visual Aids

Charts, timelines, and illustrations help jurors understand complex concepts, such as the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries or the long-term financial impact. These tools keep the jury focused on the facts rather than allowing emotions to sway their judgment.

The Ethical Debate: Transparency vs. Fairness

The prohibition against mentioning insurance raises important ethical questions. Is it fair to conceal the true party of interest in a trial? Critics argue that jurors deserve to know who is ultimately responsible for paying damages, as this information could influence their understanding of the case.

Proponents of the exclusion policy, however, maintain that it is necessary to ensure impartiality. They argue that allowing references to insurance could lead to inflated verdicts, increasing costs for insurers and policyholders alike. This tension between fairness and practicality lies at the heart of the debate.

A Path Toward Fairness and Transparency

While the exclusion of insurance is unlikely to change in the near future, there are steps that can be taken to address its impact. Judges, for example, could provide jurors with instructions emphasizing that their role is to determine fair compensation based on the evidence, regardless of the defendant’s financial circumstances. Such instructions could help mitigate the prejudice created by the absence of insurance-related information.

Policymakers could also explore reforms to increase transparency without undermining the integrity of the trial process. Limited references to insurance during voir dire or closing arguments could strike a balance between fairness and impartiality.

Why Transparency Matters in Personal Injury Trials

Personal injury trials should be about seeking justice and ensuring fair compensation for victims. Yet, the hidden role of insurance companies and their influence in the courtroom often obscure this goal. By intentionally excluding insurance from the conversation, courts inadvertently stack the deck against plaintiffs, making it harder for them to receive the compensation they deserve.

Experienced trial attorneys fight tirelessly to level the playing field, using strategies that humanize their clients, highlight accountability, and underscore the need for fair compensation. But the broader system must evolve to ensure that transparency and justice are not mutually exclusive.

If you or a loved one has been injured, understanding the complexities of personal injury trials is crucial. Insurance companies will always work to protect their bottom line, but with the right legal representation, you can fight for the justice and compensation you deserve. Contact our trusted Illinois personal injury attorneys to guide you through the process and advocate for your rights.