Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

156 S.W.3d 257

Earle v. Cobb

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 2004

Kentucky Supreme Court · decided 2004-12-16

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2018

11 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-12-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GRAVES, Justice,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur with the majority because I believe it would be a fraud upon the jury not to let them know the entire truth. The direct inquiry by the jury concerning insurance reveals there is a pervasive commonality concerning automobile insurance in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. We live in a state where liability insurance is compulsory and most jurors operate motor vehicles.

¶3In paying for insurance, jurors are made aware of the direct correlation between premiums and losses, especially since insurance companies advertise to protest jury awards. Today liability insurance is prevalent, and jurors likely assume insurance is involved in vehicular accidents. Prejudice should no longer be presumed merely because insurance is mentioned. When the rule against mentioning insurance originated, most people neither owned nor operated motor vehicles and insurance was not common.

¶4After all, Louisiana has a direct action statute in which insurance companies may be named as a party along with the defendant and the sky has not fallen yet.

/156/sw3d/257 · .json · Public domain