Fleegel v. Estate of Boyles

I disagree with the opinion’s conclusions concerning the admissibility of evidence of Boyles’s insurance coverage and the propriety of denying FleegePs alternative motion to exclude for cause all prospective jurors who were State Farm policyholders. I would reverse on those points.

EVIDENCE OF BOYLES’S INSURANCE COVERAGE

The opinion concludes that the superior court correctly denied Fleegel’s motion to exclude evidence of Boyles’s insurance coverage, reasoning that Alaska Evidence Rule 411 did not preclude this evidence because evidence of a defendant’s wealth has relevance independent of fault…