The 9-letter word insurance, as it turns out, is a four-letter word at trial. Attorneys are strictly prohibited from uttering it in front of a jury. Mistrials happen when the word accidentally slips out. The reason for this rule is simple: the legislature (fed and nourished by powerful insurance lobbyists) is afraid that if juries knew that there was actually an insurance company behind the scenes that would pay the jury’s verdict, they might actually include more money in their verdict for the injured person.
The fact is, lawyers almost never even file on a claim unless there is insurance company or unless the claim is against a large company. So if there is a trial going on, you can be 98% certain that the defendant in the case has insurance. For an attorney, it makes no sense to bring a case unless there is insurance or unless the company is large and “self-insured.” No lawyer will want to spend time and money to bring a case to trial if there is no money to pay the verdict. Garnishing wages and/or attaching assets after a verdict can be very unsatisfying. It could literally take decades to collect the verdict amount. And there is nothing to stop the defendant who has a judgment against him from filing for bankruptcy. I can tell you that in my last trial in May, that the jury we spoke with afterward didn’t think the defendant had insurance (even though we tried to
drop hints). To make matters worse, the original defended actually died of cancer before trial, leaving behind her widowed husband. Talk about an unfair advantage for the insurance company! Juries are supposed to make decisions on cases without resorting to sympathy, for one side or the other. Juries, however, are human. Even at an unconscious level, they will want to protect a defendant they feel sympathy for.
How much better it would be if would could be open with juries and let them know that the poor wrongdoer will not be saddled with the jury verdict?
Published by: Ron Kramer
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)