Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California
Could I put down in the initial complaint and in any pleading/motions/oppositions/etc., that Defendant (a HomeOwners' Association) has a $2 Million Dollar Insurance Policy through FARMERS EXCHANGE, when Im seeking a $400,000 relief, and that there's no prejudice to defendant cause they're insured?
For example, If I wanted to file a Motion For Judgment on their pleading (Answer), or Motion to Strike out an Untimely filed Answer & Enter Default Judgment (of $400,000), and state that their is no prejudice to defendant if the court grants my motion because Defendant has the $2 Million dollar Inurance that covers them, would the court and or defendant be able to strike out my stating that they have insurance.
In know that right before trial, a defendant can file a Motion In Limine to exclude Plaintiff from making statements that Defendant is insured because it always prejudices the defendant, to a jury.
But I wanted to know if Plaintiff can use the "Defendant is Insured" excuse early in litigation, when seeking monetary relief against them, like Motion For Monetary Sanctions, Motion to strike untimely Answer & Enter Default, etc.
3 Answers from Attorneys
It serves no purpose to mention in the complaint the existence of an insurance policy. In doing so, it would lead to a motion to strike, and you'll just be wasting time and resources.
Such language would be improper. If the defendant moves to strike it, the motion would almost certainly be granted.
The purpose of your complaint is to tell the defendant and the court what you believe the defendant did wrong, how his wrongdoing injured you and why the law entitles you to relief. Information about the defendant's insurance is not relevant to any of these issues. It would just influence the judge or jury for reasons unrelated to the merits of your case, so it should not be in your papers. That is the same reason you won't be allowed to talk about it in front of the jury. Your complaint may also end up in front of the jury.
Additionally, your argument is wrong. That a defendant can pay -- whether from their own funds or through insurance -- does not mean paying wouldn't prejudice it. In this context, "prejudice" essentially means "leave it worse off than it was before". A judgment that consumes some of the HOA's insurance coverage would leave it worse off.
The word "prejudice" also means "to prevent it from being treated fairly". Using information about the HOA's insurance against it would be prejudicial in that sense of the word.
My colleagues are correct, the court wont allow the insurance or ability to pay be introduced. You have to succeed on the merits of the case. You should sit down with an attorney.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
