Under Rule 411 about liability insurance, which statement is true?

• A. Insurance status may be used to prove negligence.
• B. Insurance status can be used to impeach the witness.
• C. Insurance status is relevant only to damages.
• D. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is that liability insurance status cannot be used to prove fault. Under Rule 411, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, so you can’t rely on the presence or absence of insurance to show who was at fault. This rule protects the jury from equating insurance coverage with liability and keeps the focus on the actual facts of the incident. The evidence can be admitted, however, for other purposes—such as showing bias or prejudice of a witness or to prove agency, ownership, or control—so it isn’t completely unusable in every context. That makes the statement true: insurance status is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct. The other options misstate the rule or are too broad: insurance status isn’t used to prove negligence, it isn’t limited only to damages, and while it can sometimes relate to a witness’s bias, it isn’t an unconditional tool for impeachment.