House Bill 1111 – Rep. Tincher:
Negligence actions and insurers. Provides that, in an action for damages based on negligence, an insurer shall be made a party defendant if: (1) the action is brought by a plaintiff in Indiana and based on a claim against the insured; and (2) the insurer has an interest in the outcome of the action that is adverse to the plaintiff or any other party in the action or, by its policy of insurance, assumes or reserves certain rights or agrees to take certain actions. Specifies that, if a policy of insurance is issued or delivered by an insurer outside Indiana, the insurer shall be made a party defendant only if the damage allegedly caused by negligence occurred in Indiana. Provides that, in an action for damages based on negligence, the court shall allow the admission into evidence of the fact that the wrongdoer is covered by liability insurance.
Isn’t an insurer almost always going to have an interest adverse to that of the Plaintiff? In 99% of the cases, the Plaintiff is suing the insured, wanting the insurer to pay some money under the policy. The bill also allows admission into evidence the fact that the Defendant has an insurance policy. This is a fairly significant deviation from current case law which prohibits admission of the fact of insurance. There is a sense that such evidence is prejudicial to a defendant in that a jury is presumed to be more willing to take money from an insurer than from an individual. On the other hand, jurors live in the real world and probably assume that a driver most likely has insurance.
[tags]HB1111-2007, courts[/tags]
this is a convoluted attempt to establish 3rd party bad faith in Indiana, which will never fly.
and/or direct action.
Yep, pretty obviously an attempt to institute direct action and to put the deep pocket in full view of the jury. Doug, it’s not just case law, but the Indiana Rules of Evidence that would be superseded by this statute. This also would put Indiana’s state courts opposite the federal courts on the issue of admissibility of insurance coverage and would provide an incentive for removal to federal court in every diversity case.
It would also be interesting to see how such a law would affect the Comparative Fault Act. Under the current act, in a straightforward car crash case, for instance, fault is allocated among parties and nonparties. Would the insurance company be on the verdict form?
As an attorney whose practice is largely comprised of insurance defense cases and other insurance-related litigation, I guess I shouldn’t complain, but it does seem that this law would have a negative impact on premiums across the board. If the insurer is a party in every run-of-the-mill personal injury case, then in every such case, the insurer will have to hire two attorneys–one for the policyholder and one for the company–to attend the same hearings and depositions, review the same medical records, and so forth.
Of course, the odds seem quite slim that this bill would ever make it through the Senate or past the governor’s veto pen, but if it became law, I think this act would create some problems of its own and seems designed to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist.
Can someone tell me whose bread is getting buttered by this bill?
I don’t know anything about Vern Tincher or who gives him money, but the plaintiffs’ bar, i.e. “the trial lawyers,” would be the primary beneficiary.
Tincher is situated over near Terre Haute in Vigo County. His campaign finance reports are here. I saw several attorneys listed as contributers, including Tofaute & Spellman who I know to be personal injury plaintiff’s attorneys. But the numbers I saw at first glance weren’t really eye-popping, so who really knows.