Colo. R. Evid. 411
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 411
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Rule 411: Permitting Evidence of Insurance to Show Witness Bias", see 30 Colo. Law. 41 (January 2001). For article, "Rule 411: Excluding Evidence of Insurance Offered to Show Witness Bias", see 38 Colo. Law. 17 (January 2009). Allusion to insurance coverage improper. Evidence of a party's liability insurance is irrelevant to the question of whether he acted negligently or otherwise, and as such, any allusion to insurance coverage is improper. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. District Court, 617 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1980); Jacob v. Com. Highland Theatres, Inc., 738 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1986). However, mere inadvertent or incidental mention of insurance before the jury does not automatically call for a mistrial. Unless prejudice is shown, there is no reversible error in denying a mistrial. Jacob v. Com. Highland Theatres, Inc., 738 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1986). Court properly denied mistrial motion where party, rather than counsel, made incidental reference to insurance, counsel did not exploit the reference, party was promptly admonished by counsel, the court outside the presence of the jury ordered counsel to avoid any future reference to the existence of insurance, and movant failed to request jury instruction to disregard testimony. Miller v. Rowtech, LLC, 3 P.3d 492 (Colo. App. 2000). And the fact that the defendant's expert witness had a "substantial connection" with the defendant's insurer is probative of bias, and admission of evidence of such connection was within the trial court's discretion. Bonser v. Shainholtz, 3 P.3d 422 (Colo. 2000). .