Under Rule 411, liability insurance is not admissible to prove negligence but may be admitted for other purposes. Which option represents a permissible use of insurance evidence under this rule?

• A. Proving bias or prejudice
• B. Proving agency, ownership, or control
• C. Proving the existence of an insurance contract
• D. Proving the insured's lack of negligence

Answer: (D)

The main concept is that evidence of liability insurance cannot be used to prove how someone acted or whether they were negligent, but it can be admitted for other, legitimate purposes. A classic and direct permissible use is to show bias or prejudice in a witness. If a person has a stake in the outcome—such as a party who stands to gain or lose based on the verdict—learning that the other side carries liability insurance can affect how a jury weighs that person’s testimony. This helps the jury assess credibility and motive, rather than proving fault.

Using insurance to prove the insured’s lack of negligence would still be attempting to prove fault, which Rule 411 forbids. While insurance may also be relevant to other permissible purposes like proving agency, ownership, or control in some contexts, the most straightforward and commonly invoked permissible use among the options is demonstrating bias or prejudice. Proving the existence of an insurance contract is not the primary, typical illustration of the rule’s permitted purposes.