Evidence that a person was or was not insured is not admissible on the question whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully, and not admissible on the issue of damages. But exclusion of evidence of insurance is not required when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Rule 2:411.INSURANCE
Part Two: Virginia Rules of Evidence · Last amended 2012 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceRule 2:411 bars evidence that a person was or wasn’t insured from being used to prove negligence, wrongful conduct, or damages, but allows the same evidence when offered for another purpose, such as proving agency, ownership, control, or a witness’s bias.
Full Text of Rule 2:411
Plain-English Summary
Rule 2:411 addresses a familiar risk: knowing a defendant carries insurance can tempt a jury to decide liability or damages based on who is footing the bill rather than on the merits of the case. To prevent that, the rule makes evidence that a person was or was not insured inadmissible on the question of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully, and inadmissible on the issue of damages.
The exclusion, like the parallel rules on subsequent remedial measures and settlement negotiations, is limited to those two uses. Insurance evidence remains admissible when offered for another purpose — proof of agency, ownership, or control, for example, where the existence of a policy might establish who controlled the property or relationship at issue, or proof of a witness’s bias or prejudice, such as when a witness works for the insurer with a stake in the outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a jury be told that a defendant has liability insurance?
Not to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, and not on the issue of damages. Rule 2:411 makes evidence of insurance inadmissible for those purposes.
Is evidence about insurance ever admissible?
Yes, when offered for a purpose other than proving negligence, wrongdoing, or damages — Rule 2:411 lists proof of agency, ownership, or control, and proof of a witness’s bias or prejudice, as examples of permitted purposes.
Why does Virginia exclude insurance evidence from the negligence question?
To keep the jury focused on whether the person acted negligently or wrongfully, rather than letting the presence or absence of insurance coverage influence a verdict based on who can afford to pay.
Can evidence of insurance show that a witness is biased?
Yes. Rule 2:411 specifically identifies a witness’s bias or prejudice as a permitted purpose for insurance evidence — relevant, for example, when a witness has a financial relationship with the insurer that has a stake in the case’s outcome.
Does Rule 2:411 apply to both liability insurance and other kinds of insurance?
The rule’s text speaks broadly to evidence that a person was or was not insured, without limiting itself to a particular type of coverage, though it is most often invoked in the context of liability insurance in negligence cases.
Amendment History
Adopted and promulgated by Order dated June 1, 2012; effective July 1, 2012.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia, published by the
Supreme Court of Virginia. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: insurance evidence inadmissible virginiacan jury know about insurance virginia trialinsurance evidence bias witness virginialiability insurance evidence rule virginia