Certain Insurance Information Ruled Inadmissible in a Post-Koken Auto Accident Lawsuit

In the case of Gilmore v. Erie Insurance Company, No. CV-2023-1140 (C.P. Wash. Co. April 23, 2025 Neuman, J.), in an Order without Opinion, the court granted a Defendant’s Motion In Limine filed in a post-Koken matter and thereby precluded the Plaintiff from introducing into evidence, any evidence or testimony regarding the amount of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, the amount of the premiums that the Plaintiff paid to his own UIM carrier, or that the Plaintiff’s UIM limits amounted to $300,000.00.

The rationale of the court was that the admission of such evidence would be overly prejudicial to the Defendant UIM carrier.

Again, there is no Opinion issued. This decision was by way of Order only.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of above image: Photo by Nikitaxnikitin on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules Jury Cannot Award Damages That Were Neither Sought or Proven

In the case of Stapas v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2016 Pa. Super. 303 (Pa. Super. Dec. 23, 2016 Stabile, J. Bowes, J. Musmanno, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, in part, the trial court’s denial of post-trial motions in a personal injury matter arising out of a shooting incident. 

Of note was the fact that the court found that the amount of $1.3 million dollars awarded the Plaintiff for future income loss was not supported by the evidence and was not even sought by the Plaintiff.  As such, the court ruled, under the rationale that a verdict must bear a reasonable resemblance to the proven damages, that a jury cannot award damages that were neither sought nor proven.   In so ruling, the court also stated that, even though the jury was not required to itemize its award of damages, it chose to do so, and those findings revealed the unsupported award.   

This decision is also notable in the Superior Court’s decision that the brief mention of the Plaintiff’s lack of health insurance did not require a new trial.  The court noted that this testimony was immediately stricken by the trial court.   The Superior Court also reasoned that the prohibition against the mentioning of insurance in civil litigation matters under Pa. R.E. 411 generally applies to a Defendant’s possession of liability insurance.  

The Stapas court also addressed the assumption of risk defense raised in this matter and stated that getting into a fight should not be considered the assumption of the risk of being shot.   The court emphasized that, in the case before it, the Plaintiff did not know that his attacker was armed.  

 The court returned the case to the trial court for a new trial on damages only.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.    

Federal Middle District Court Judge James M. Munley Addresses Admissibility of Insurance Information at Post-Koken Trial

In his recent December 8, 2016 Opinion in the case of Rodkey v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-454 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2016 Munley, J.), Judge James M. Munley addressed the issue of the admissibility of insurance information at a Post-Koken trial.

This matter arose out of an uninsured motorist claim brought by a Plaintiff who was allegedly the victim of a hit-and-run accident.

In pre-trial motions in limine, the defense sought to preclude evidence of the amounts of premiums the Plaintiff had paid for her uninsured motorist benefits insurance as well as evidence of the amount of uninsured motorists benefits available under the policy.  The court denied both motions and ruled that the Plaintiff was allowed to present this evidence at trial.

The court found such evidence to be relevant to the breach of contract claim stated.  Judge Munley also rejected the defense argument that the admission of such evidence would cause confusion and/or be prejudicial. The court felt that any potential confusion or prejudice could be addressed by way of jury instructions and argument of counsel.

The court otherwise ruled on a separate motion that the plaintiff would be allowed to pursue a recovery of her co-pays and deductible related to medical expenses as those expenses were not "paid or payable" as defined by Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law.

Anyone wishing to review Judge Munley's decision in the Rodkey case may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.


To view another, prior decision by Judge James M. Munley in the case of Noone v. Progressive on the admissibility of insurance information in Post-Koken trial matters, click HERE.

To view an Eastern District Federal Court decision in the case of Lucca v. GEICO going the other way and ruling that such information was not admissible, click HERE.

With this split of authority, the hope remains that this issue, and other important Post-Koken issues will go up the appellate ladder and become the subject of published appellate court opinions to provide guidance to the bench and the bar.