Related Posts
More Posts
Need 11 likes to unlock dm
Looking for opportunities to scale your expertise? Come join us here at NeoSOFT Technologies. Interested candidates can comment #Interested on this post or simply share their resumes at samiksha.panchal@neosofttech.com Also, tag or share this with your connections who may be looking for great career opportunities. #NeoSOFTTechnologies #Java #Developers #Jobs #Hiring #Talents #Jobopenings

Additional Posts in Personal Injury Lawyers
✨Hi All! We are growing in this bowl! 🌱 If you are interested in getting more involved in this bowl and want to earn rewards for your participation. Become a Bowl leader! 🤩 To learn more about the Bowl Rewards program, go click the below link & email julia.aas@glassdoor.com for more information!
http://communityleaders.fishbowlapp.com/
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.




Nope. It would be a mistrial
That would be a huge no-no in NJ.
Jesus, no. Automatic mistrial and loss of down. 🤦🏽♀️
Rising Star
This is a cardinal sin. Immediate mistrial. There are some sneaky ways to strongly infer the defendant is insured but even that is risky and certainly not proper etiquette
Rising Star
I should add that during jury selection I’ve seen some attorneys ask if they know anyone that works for an insurance company. Just so they can start thinking about it. Not great etiquette but again you might be able to go this route
Immediate mistrial. Arguably the most egregious too and run the risk of judge going nuts on you.
Absolutely not, but sort of - you can ask about it during jury selection (a little bit of a loophole)
I’ve injected to that line of voir dire and had it sustained here in CA. I’ve also been in front of judges that have sanctioned attorneys who’ve tried it after being warned.
And just hope that liability didn’t offer limits and gets stuck with the excess verdict (depending on jurisdiction)
Depending on the facts you can sometimes make it obvious and level the playing field, but like the other comments pointed out it is grounds for a mistrial if you bring it up. Very very limited exceptions where good lawyering can give you that small window of opportunity.
The only dumb questions are the one you don’t ask. Typically no, you cannot mention insurance, with the very rare exceptions of when they’re denying things like ownership/control of the vehicle or something.
If you're in NY there is a CPLR jury selection question you ask verbatim about whether they, a family member, or anyone they know works for an insurance company or adjusts insurance. If you Google it, it will come up
If you have a jury instruction regarding not being able to consider insurance, use that, to get auto insurance in their minds.
Check your jurisdiction. Lookup something called the collateral source rule. Generally, the answer is no, but it’s also a bad idea to get legal advice from social media services.
no
Yes….if you want an immediate mistrial
I’ve also seen plaintiff attorneys cross defense experts re: how much State Farm pays them a year for expert work.
That’s out of Bounds in CA and a MIL on the topic gets granted nearly 100% of the time.
Absolutely not