Lacher v. Anderson

Supreme Court of North Dakota · 1994 · Evidence

526 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1994)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 411Rule 403liability insurancebias of witnessimpeachmentprior statementadjuster

Facts

Joan Lacher fell down a dark stairway after opening a door while looking for a bathroom at the Andersons' home. Eight days later, while Joan was hospitalized, Bob Smith, an adjuster for the Andersons' insurer, tape-recorded a voluntary statement from her describing the accident. At trial, the Andersons used the transcribed statement to impeach Joan, but Joan did not deny making the statements or claim the transcription was inaccurate; instead, she said she had been mistaken in some particulars when she gave the statement. The trial court refused to allow the Lachers to tell the jury that Smith worked for the Andersons' insurance company, and it later taxed deposition expenses as costs in favor of the Andersons.

Issue

Did the trial court err in excluding evidence that the person who took Joan's prior statement worked for the defendants' liability insurer when the statement was used for impeachment, and did the court err in allowing testimony about the building code and in taxing deposition expenses as costs? More specifically, was Smith's insurer connection relevant to show bias under Rule 411 when his credibility was not actually in dispute?

Rule

Evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible to prove negligence, but under Rule 411 it may be admitted for another purpose, such as showing a witness's bias or prejudice, subject to Rule 403 balancing. When a witness does not dispute making the prior statement and does not challenge the accuracy of its transcription, the statement-taker's connection with an insurer is irrelevant because the statement-taker's credibility is not in issue. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06(2), necessary deposition expenses may be taxed if the depositions were necessarily used or obtained for use at trial, even if they were not introduced into evidence.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a slip-and-fall trial in Fargo, plaintiff Nina Patel is confronted with a transcript of a recorded statement she gave from the hospital two days after the accident. Nina admits she gave the statement and admits the transcript accurately reflects what she said, but explains that she was confused and mistaken about several details at the time. The statement was taken by Owen Mercer, an employee of the homeowner's liability insurer, and Mercer does not testify before the jury.

If Nina seeks to tell the jury that Mercer worked for the homeowner's insurer to show bias, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Rule 411 allows insurance evidence for a limited purpose such as proving a witness's bias, but only if that bias is relevant, and the court must weigh admissibility under Rule 403. Where the witness admits making the prior statement and does not dispute the accuracy of the transcription, the statement-taker's credibility is not actually in issue. In that situation, the insurer connection has no meaningful probative value and mainly injects insurance into the case, so exclusion is proper.