 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LANDRY v. HILTON HEAD PLAN. PROP. OWN. ASSOC.12/12/1994
ncluded trimming the grass and edging the sidewalks in the common areas. The insurance clause added nothing to these contractual duties.
Further, our courts have consistently held the existence and contents of a defendant's liability insurance policy may not be disclosed to the jury. See, e.g., Dunn v. Charleston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 311 S.C. 43, 45, 426 S.E.2d 756, 757 (1993) (" he fact that a Defendant is protected from liability in an action for damages by insurance shall not be made known to the jury."); Norris v. Ferre, 315 S.C. 179, 181, 432 S.E.2d 491, 493 (Ct.App. 1993) (" he Supreme Court has been meticulous in keeping the issue of insurance coverage away from the jury.")
We therefore hold the trial court did not err in excluding the liability insurance clause because, even if the clause was relevant to the question of duty, the prejudicial effect of its admission would have far outweighed any possible probative value that it might have had. See State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 393 S.E.2d 364, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 227 (1990) (evidence should be excluded if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
HOWELL, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|