It might surprise you to learn that during a personal injury trial, the word “insurance” is strictly off-limits. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are barred from even hinting that a defendant may have insurance that would cover the judgment. Why? Courts worry that jurors might award more damages if they know a deep-pocketed insurance company will pay the bill.

But this rule—rooted in a century-old legal tradition—raises important questions: Is this fair to jurors? Shouldn’t they know who is actually footing the bill? And does the rule still serve justice in 2025?

Let’s break it down.

The Origins of the Rule: A 100-Year Legacy

The prohibition against mentioning liability insurance dates back to the early 1900s, when personal injury trials and cases surged alongside the rise of the automobile and industrial workplaces. Courts feared jurors would award inflated verdicts if they knew a defendant had insurance.

In Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hering, 181 S.W. 282 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915), the court held that mentioning insurance was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. That philosophy remains embedded in the rules to this day.

At the federal level, Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence codifies this principle:

“Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.”

Link: Rule 411 – U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence

While there are exceptions (e.g., to prove bias or control), in most cases, jurors are kept completely in the dark about insurance coverage—even though it’s often the deciding factor in whether a case settles or goes to trial.

Modern Criticisms and Reform Proposals

1. Jurors Are Misled

Jurors may wrongly believe that the defendant will personally pay the damages. This can lead to sympathy for the defendant or unjustly low verdicts. In reality, insurance pays in over 95% of personal injury cases.

“The failure to disclose insurance distorts the legal narrative and reduces transparency in a system that relies on public trust and informed citizen participation.”

— Fordham Law Review, Vol. 85, Issue 4, Article 12 (2017)

Read article

2. Erosion of Public Trust

In post-personal injury trial interviews, jurors have expressed feeling “duped” upon learning the truth about insurance. If justice is supposed to be transparent, this rule arguably undermines that principle.

3. Defense Advantage

Defense attorneys can subtly imply hardship or personal responsibility without revealing that an insurer is paying for the defense and the judgment. This gives the defense a narrative advantage that’s unavailable to the plaintiff.

4. Reform Ideas Gaining Traction

Proposals include:

• A neutral jury instruction explaining that insurance may or may not be involved.
• Limited disclosure when the defense opens the door.
• Voir dire reforms to allow discussion of attitudes toward insurance.

How Insurance Still Shapes Trials Behind the Scenes

Even though jurors can’t hear the word “insurance,” it drives nearly every decision behind closed doors:

• Settlement value is determined almost entirely by the insurance limits and coverage.
• Defense counsel is typically hired, paid, and directed by the insurance carrier.
• Trial strategy often hinges on minimizing the exposure to the insurer—not on personal responsibility.

This creates an unusual dual reality: a personal injury trial that presents one financial picture to the jury, while attorneys on both sides know the real party in interest is the insurance company.

Some states—like New Jersey—have started to allow limited discovery and admissibility of insurance information when relevant, such as showing agency or control. But wholesale reform remains slow.

Practical Implications for Trial Lawyers

As a plaintiff’s attorney, this rule requires creative and careful navigation:

• Voir dire strategy becomes essential. You must uncover juror biases without triggering objections over insurance.
• Sympathy management is delicate. Jurors often assume a verdict that hurts the person in the defendant’s chair.
• Post-trial motions sometimes hinge on jury misunderstandings about who pays—and that confusion is built into the system by design.

Plaintiff attorneys walk a tightrope during a personal injury trial: arguing for justice without being allowed to reveal the full financial picture. Meanwhile, defense attorneys benefit from a rule that hides the true source of payment.

Final Thoughts

The rule against mentioning insurance in a personal injury trial may have made sense 100 years ago, but in today’s litigation landscape, it raises real fairness concerns. Jurors are asked to deliver justice with incomplete information. Reform won’t be easy—but transparency, truth, and trust in the justice system may demand it.

Until then, trial lawyers must continue fighting smart, knowing that one of the biggest players in the courtroom, the insurance company—is often invisible to the jury.

Have Questions About a Personal Injury Case?

If you or a loved one was injured and are worried about how damages are paid, let us answer your questions—no pressure, just clarity.

📍 DFox Law – Personal Injury Attorneys

📞 Call us at (512) 996-6369

🌐 Visit: www.DFoxLaw.com

📧 Email: help@dfoxlaw.com

📍 Proudly serving all of Texas.