Although every trial jurisdiction is different, even just from city to city and across county lines, one consistent juror perception we encounter is that insurance status determines quality of care.  

Almost everyone has had the experience of seeking medical care and being asked for insurance information immediately after walking in, and before any evaluation takes place.  This experience feeds the perception that patients can’t even get care without health insurance, and those with basic or “cheap” health plans typically get sent to the back of the line in a hospital setting.  It’s disturbing, but it’s out there. 

As a result, during nationwide medical malpractice research, one of the first questions jurors ask is whether the plaintiff had insurance, and what kind. 

We have observed that when this topic comes up, sometimes telling jurors the plaintiff’s insurance status won’t come in at trial is simply not enough. Many participants during recent focus groups in a plaintiff-oriented venue assumed the reason insurance status would be kept out is because the plaintiff didn’t have it and that somehow factored in to how caregivers treated her.

This is why at trial it is so important to address this issue early on, before jurors fill in their own blanks and make harmful assumptions. If possible, we recommend explaining at the outset that not only won’t insurance information come in, but the plaintiff will not claim insurance coverage played any part and agrees it was not a factor in the care.

We have also found that perceptions of insurance companies and large institutions can affect juror viewpoints as well as their openness to awarding damages.  During trial research we frequently hear that since the defendant is likely insured, “they can afford” to pay up – regardless of whether the defendant did anything wrong.  We’ve also heard that paying settlements and verdicts is “just a cost of doing business.”

To combat this, it is vitally important to present it as an issue of fairness and make it relevant to jurors’ lives.  For example, many jurors can likely afford to pay for a parking ticket, but that doesn’t mean they should automatically have to cough up money when they were parked legally and believe they were ticketed in error.

To discuss how these attitudes might factor into juror perceptions of one of your upcoming cases, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.