## Facts

- Margaret M. Ginter, beneficiary of a life insurance policy on her husband’s life, sought payment of policy proceeds from Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.
- The insurer resisted payment, alleging the insured made material omissions in the application by failing to disclose psychiatric treatment for depression.
- The beneficiary contended the application was fully and accurately answered and that any inaccuracies were not material.
- Before trial, the beneficiary sought to present witnesses to testify that the insured had “good character” (e.g., honesty), to suggest he was unlikely to submit a fraudulent or erroneous application.
- The court addressed the admissibility of this proposed character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) in a civil case.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a civil action, a party may introduce evidence of a person’s good character to prove the person likely acted in conformity with that trait when completing an insurance application under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a).
2. Whether character was an element of any claim or defense such that Rule 404(a) would permit the proffered evidence.

## Decision

- The court ruled that character evidence offered to prove conduct in conformity is inadmissible in civil cases under Rule 404(a), unless character is an element of a claim or defense.
- The court excluded the beneficiary’s proposed evidence of the insured’s “good character” offered to show he likely did not misstate or omit information on the application.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) generally prohibits using character evidence to prove that a person acted in accordance with a character trait on a particular occasion.
- In civil cases, character-trait evidence to prove conduct in conformity is excluded unless character itself is a substantive element of a claim or defense (e.g., defamation).
- Policy considerations supporting exclusion include avoiding distraction from the disputed transaction, consumption of trial time, and collateral disputes over reputation.

## Conclusion

The court held that, because the insured’s character was not a substantive element of the insurance coverage dispute, the beneficiary could not introduce evidence of his good character to suggest he likely did not make material misrepresentations or omissions in the life insurance application.


Ginter v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 576 F. Supp. 627 (E.D. Ky. 1984)