Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances insurer‑defendant bill after hours of debate over jury prejudice and court rules
Summary
S4499, which would permit insurers to be named in certain liability suits, was released with amendments after insurers warned of jury prejudice and plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocates argued naming insurers increases transparency when carriers effectively control litigation.
The Senate Commerce Committee released S4499 on May 22 after extended testimony from insurers, trial lawyers and business groups about whether insurers should be named as defendants in some liability lawsuits.
Sponsor supporters and trial‑lawyer groups argued that when an insurer controls litigation or refuses to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) claims, jurors should know the full list of parties who are substantively involved. Adam Letterman of the New Jersey Association for Justice said the bill would "end the unfair practice of insurance companies being able to hide their identity in court," and described cases in which a policyholder’s insurer directs litigation while assuming the financial consequences.
Insurer representatives, including Alex Daniel of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute and Gary Laspiza of the Insurance Counsel of New Jersey, warned the committee that routinely naming insurers risks the "deep pockets" inference and could prejudice jurors, shifting focus from negligence facts to the presence of insurance. Laspiza said the state’s present case law and court rules shield jurors from liability‑coverage information to avoid that bias.
Committee members acknowledged both concerns and asked sponsors to redraft narrowly to capture the sponsor’s goal (disclosure where an insurer is an actual defendant or exercises litigation control) while avoiding broad changes that conflict with evidentiary rules. Chair Lagano said staff would coordinate with judicial stakeholders to ensure statutory language fits procedural rules. The committee released S4499 with instructions to narrow the bill.
Next steps: Sponsors will work with the Administrative Office of the Courts and stakeholders to narrow the statutory language. The committee directed staff to return revised language that limits exposure of insurance information to situations where it is directly relevant to the jury’s factfinding.
Context: Witnesses referenced the Bartus case and state evidentiary rules as background for the current practice of shielding jurors from insurance‑coverage information in negligence trials.
