Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (2026)

Rule 411. Liability insurance

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1984–2020 · leading case: Patterson v. Swarr, May, Smith & Anderson, 473 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patterson v. Swarr, May, Smith & Anderson, 473 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “The essence of that rule has been codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1989). Section 27-411 provides: Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted *918 negligently or otherwise wrongfully.”

Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 631 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 2× “We agree with L & B’s position that as it is not liability insurance which is involved, the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1989) do not apply.”

Kresha v. Kresha, 344 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. 1984). · cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. §27-411 (Reissue 1979). Plaintiff’s malice, or lack of malice, in filing the lawsuit is irrelevant to the issues of negligence or damages.”

Hoffart v. Hodge, 609 N.W.2d 397 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Lemon argues that because a portion of any judgment awarded to Lemon might be paid by the Fund, which in turn could cause an increase in surcharges, Hodge’s experts’ participation in the Act is a proper subject for questioning to show financial bias pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”

Ginn v. Lamp, 450 N.W.2d 388 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “411 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1985)).”

Kvamme v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 677 N.W.2d 122 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “Generally, Nebraska does not allow evidence of liability insurance or policy limits to be admitted because it may inject prejudice into the jury’s decisionmaking process, thereby distorting the jury’s verdict.”

Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 605 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 4× “The appellants further contend that even if the admission of evidence of insurance would have been prejudicial, the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by any unfair prejudice.”

Schuemann v. Menard, Inc., 27 Neb. Ct. App. 977 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “We have listened to the entire recorded conversation and conclude that the admitted portion of the conversation was not taken out of context and that the redacted portion of the conversation does not qualify or explain the admitted portion. Rather, in the minutes of the…”

Reimer v. Surgical Serv. Of Great Plains, 605 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 4× “The appellants further contend that even if the admission of evidence of insurance would have been prejudicial, the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by any unfair prejudice.”

Stumpf ex rel. Selzer v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 N.W.2d 735 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “We considered the prejudicial effect of the reference to insurance under a Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1995) analysis and concluded that the trial court did not err in granting a new trial.”

Bailey v. AMISUB (Saint Joseph Hosp.), Inc., 489 N.W.2d 323 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1989). However, the Nebraska Supreme Court has never held that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s lack of health insurance is a ground for mistrial.”

Stumpf Ex Rel. Selzer v. Nintendo, 601 N.W.2d 735 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “We considered the prejudicial effect of the reference to insurance under a Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-411 (Reissue 1995) analysis and concluded that the trial court did not err in granting a new trial.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.