California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Neumann v. Bishop, 130 Cal.Rptr. 786, 59 Cal.App.3d 451 (Cal. App. 1976):
Defendant also suggests that any reference to the fact that she is insured violates the principle embodied in the collateral source rule, which permits the injured person to recover damages from the wrongdoer undiminished by any payment he may have received for the injury from a source wholly independent of the wrongdoer. (See De Cruz v. Reid (1968) 69 Cal.2d 217, 223--225, 70 Cal.Rptr. 550, 444 P.2d 342.) Apparently she, as a wrongdoer, feels that she should not be prejudiced because the jury, with knowledge that she will be indemnified from a collateral source, may not evaluate her defense fairly. It is unnecessary to consider this reed; defendant's contention, if sustainable, may be grounded on the general proposition expounded in the Evidence Code, as applied by the courts.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.