Hale v. Furr's Incorporated

(specially concurring).

The doctrine of cross-examination of a “claims investigator” should be put to rest. After Arias, the claims investigator, had contradicted testimony of plaintiff’s witness on' direct examination, he was asked this question, to which he made this answer:

Q. Mr. Arias, in investigating this claim you were working for an insurance company?

A. Yes, sir.

Is this question proper? Of course, it is.

This is a matter of first impression in New Mexico. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court opened the door to reality about a juror’s knowledge of insurance coverage for large…