Nebraska Statutes
§ 27-411 — Rule 411. Liability insurance
Nebraska § 27-411
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 27Courts; Rules of Evidence
This text of Nebraska § 27-411 (Rule 411. Liability insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (2026).
Text
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, Inc.
507 N.W.2d 631 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1993)
Patterson v. Swarr, May, Smith & Anderson
473 N.W.2d 94 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1991)
Kresha v. Kresha
344 N.W.2d 906 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1984)
Kvamme v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
677 N.W.2d 122 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2004)
Hoffart v. Hodge
609 N.W.2d 397 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2000)
Ginn v. Lamp
450 N.W.2d 388 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1990)
Stumpf ex rel. Selzer v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
601 N.W.2d 735 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1999)
Reimer v. Surgical Services of the Great Plains, P.C.
605 N.W.2d 777 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2000)
Bailey v. AMISUB (Saint Joseph Hospital), Inc.
489 N.W.2d 323 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1992)
Reimer v. SURGICAL SERV. OF GREAT PLAINS
605 N.W.2d 777 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2000)
Schuemann v. Menard, Inc.
27 Neb. Ct. App. 977 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2020)
STUMPF EX REL. SELZER v. Nintendo
601 N.W.2d 735 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1999)
Legislative History
Source: Laws 1975, LB 279, § 21.
Annotations: The remote potential for bias of a witness on the basis of sharing the same insurance carrier as the defendant must be balanced against the prejudicial effect of its admission. Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 258 Neb. 671, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000). Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under this section, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to section 27-408. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993). Where the existence of insurance coverage is not relevant to any issue in the case, evidence of such coverage is inadmissible. Kresha v. Kresha, 216 Neb. 377, 344 N.W.2d 906 (1984). Inadvertent mention of plaintiff's lack of health insurance is not prejudicial error requiring mistrial where it is not shown that jury inferred that plaintiff was incapable of paying expenses. Where indemnification of defendants does not logically follow from the fact that plaintiff lacked health insurance, it cannot be said that defendants were prejudiced. Bailey v. AMISUB, 1 Neb. App. 56, 489 N.W.2d 323 (1992).
Nearby Sections
15
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 27-411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/27-411.