Evidence of an Insurer’s Handling of Claims: Is it Admissible?

The Pellegrino decision emphasizes a basic but highly important principle in the context of a question as to admissibility of evidence: relevancy. The Court in Pellegrino conceded that evidence of an insurer’s claims handling may be relevant to an award of no-fault attorney fees or to the recovery of penalty interest. However, the Court further clarified that such evidence is not directly relevant to a plaintiff’s recovery of PIP benefits. Specifically, under MRE 401, such evidence of claims handling “would not have a tendency to make it more probable or less probable that plaintiff’s injuries arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle.”

For the full article, click here: https://bit.ly/3dnFskk