Evidence regarding the UIM limits of the policy and the amount of liability insurance coverage available to the tortfeasor was admissible and not overly prejudicial to the defendant.

The plaintiff had been involved in a motor vehicle accident with an underinsured motorist in which she suffered injuries to her neck and right shoulder. Her policy with the defendant included UIM coverage. When the defendant refused to tender the plaintiff’s demand of $65,000 and instead offered $5,000 to settle the claim, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. The Middle District Court considered the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the plaintiff from entering into evidence the amount of premiums the plaintiff had paid on the policy and the UIM limits of the policy. The defendant also sought to preclude the amount of liability insurance coverage available to the tortfeasor and/or the amount of liability coverage recovered by the plaintiff. The defendant argued that this information was irrelevant since the only issue before the jury should be the amount of UIM coverage to which the plaintiff is entitled. The defendant also argued that this evidence would improperly suggest a specific award to the jury if they found the plaintiff was entitled to UIM benefits. The plaintiff argued that the evidence was necessary for the jury to understand and evaluate the case. The court ruled that the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, confusing or misleading. UIM benefits are used to compensate an insured when his/her damages exceed those benefits available under the tortfeasor’s policy. It is, therefore, important that the jury understand the limits of the tortfeasor’s liability insurance and the amount the plaintiff received from the tortfeasor. The court also held that the defendant’s policy was the contract at issue. It was not overly prejudicial to the defendant for the jury to know the amount of coverage or the amount the plaintiff had paid for the policy. This was merely background information.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013