Update on Iowa insurance issue

[unspellable]

The story:

A man in West Des Moines, Iowa bought self-defense legal insurance from USCCA. Around eight months ago he shot an intruder in his house. Initially the police viewed it as a self-defense case. However, the question came up as to whether or not the intruder was armed. (Point still not resolved.) At this point it went to a hearing.

At the hearing, he was asked how he had representation and bond so quickly. The answer was his insurance coverage from USCCA. Where upon this was submitted as evidence of premeditation.

He has a friend who attends an open carry event that I also attend. This friend called Tom Miller, Iowa State AG who told him insurance coverage could be viewed as premeditation. Since then Miller has clammed up pending the outcome of this case. We may know more in the latter half of February.

Points of note: Iowa has no castle doctrine law. Tom Miller is a notably anti-gun Democrat.

Anybody else heard about this?

 

[lemaymiami]

Please provide updates on this as it evolves... Although I live a long ways from that state it would interesting to see how the various players take their positions (and whatever the outcome is...).

For what it's worth (I'm a long retired cop...) I'd guess that the comments by the AG (if accurately reported) were deliberately intended to discourage that particular form of insurance, whether any legal justification existed for them or not.... (nothing like having an "agenda"...).

 

[Dog Soldier]

I suppose I am all wet on this? But if I buy insurance on my Jeep and hit your Mercedes Benz is this proof I planned the accident? I thought buying insurance was gambling that I would never need it? In other words not planing a catastrophe.
Now one of our legal experts can explain this. I never seem to get these thing right.

 

[Darkhorse]

How can a person "premeditate" an event they don't know will happen, and have no control over?

 

[Frank Ettin]

We are not going to begin what may well be a protracted and fruitless discussion about a serious and important topic without a much better foundation. The vague, undocumented, anonymous, third party reports posted by the OP as a basis for discussion are completely inadequate as a basis for such a discussion.

It is a universal rule, at least in civil matters, that the existence of insurance coverage may not be used as evidence of liability. See, for example, Federal Rules of Evidence 411:

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1933; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

The courts have with substantial unanimity rejected evidence of liability insurance for the purpose of proving fault, and absence of liability insurance as proof of lack of fault. At best the inference of fault from the fact of insurance coverage is a tenuous one, as is its converse. More important, no doubt, has been the feeling that knowledge of the presence or absence of liability insurance would induce juries to decide cases on improper grounds. McCormick §168; Annot., 4 A.L.R.2d 761. The rule is drafted in broad terms so as to include contributory negligence or other fault of a plaintiff as well as fault of a defendant.

The second sentence points out the limits of the rule, using well established illustrations. Id.

For similar rules see Uniform Rule 54; California Evidence Code §1155; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–454; New Jersey Evidence Rule 54.....

Iowa indeed has such a rule in civil matters (Stewart v. Hilton, 247 Iowa 988, 77 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa, 1956)).

The underlying rationale for such a rule applies at least as strongly in a criminal context as a civil one.

If the Iowa AG and an Iowa trial court have actually suggested that the the presence of insurance may offered as evidence of wrongful conduct, it is a major departure from well established and accepted principles of evidence law. But there's nothing to be gained from any discussion without more reliable confirmation of what in fact happened.