Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2411 (2026)

Liability insurance

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence of the existence of liability insurance is not admissible upon the issue of negligence or wrongful action. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of liability insurance where the question of possession of liability insurance is itself an element of the action, or when offered for another purpose, including proof of agency, ownership, control, bias or prejudice of a witness. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 411, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1991–2013 · leading case: Beshara v. S. Nat'l Bank, 928 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beshara v. S. Nat'l Bank, 928 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “Upon the Bank's motion, the trial court excluded the proof of loss claim from evidence, relying on 12 O.S.1981 § 2411 which provides: "Evidence of the existence of liability insurance is not admissible upon the issue of negligence or wrongful action.”

Handy v. City of Lawton, 835 P.2d 870 (Okla. 1992). “The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2411 provide in pertinent part: "Evidence of the existence of liability insurance is not admissible upon the issue of negligence or wrongful action.”

Mills v. Grotheer, 1998 OK 33 (Okla. 1998). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2411 . But even relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of culmative evidence, or unfair and…”

Moore v. Blackwell, 325 P.3d 4 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). “¶27 Defendant argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Plaintiff's counsel to question Defendant about his deposition testimony about a recorded statement given to his insurance company.”

Shuman v. Laverne Farmers Coop., 809 P.2d 76 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “12 O.S.1981 § 2411; Tidmore v. Fullman, 646 P.”

Moore v. Blackwell, 2014 OK CIV APP 37 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). “¶27 Defendant argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Plaintiff's counsel to question Defendant about his deposition testimony about a recorded statement given to his insurance company.”

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.