## Facts

- Joanne C. Williams sued Mia McCoy for personal injuries arising from a 1997 automobile collision in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
- Williams went to an emergency room immediately after the collision and was released.
- Williams first saw a chiropractor four days later, explaining that she did not go sooner because the doctor was unavailable.
- Williams had a history of work-related knee injuries, but testified the collision caused new walking problems and knee “clicking.”
- Before trial, the court granted a motion in limine under N.C. R. Evid. 411 barring Williams from mentioning liability insurance or communications with liability insurance adjusters.
- Williams objected that a blanket bar would prevent her from explaining why she retained counsel if questioned; the court reserved ruling on her objection.
- At trial, the defense cross-examined Williams extensively about the timing of her chiropractic visit, her reported symptoms, and her failure to return to the emergency room.
- Defense counsel asked whether Williams retained her attorney before seeing the chiropractor; over objection, she answered “No,” and then said she did not remember when the question was repeated.
- Outside the jury’s presence, Williams offered proof she would testify she retained counsel only after an encounter with the defendant’s insurance claims adjuster, who allegedly pressured her to settle.
- The trial court, relying on its Rule 411 ruling, refused to allow Williams to give that explanation to the jury.
- The jury found McCoy negligent and awarded Williams $3,000; the trial court denied a new trial and entered judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by permitting cross-examination about when Williams retained counsel in a negligence action where the extent of injury was disputed.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Williams’s explanation—referencing an encounter with the defendant’s claims adjuster—under N.C. R. Evid. 411 and Rule 403.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not err in allowing the defense to ask when Williams retained her attorney, because the timing was relevant to credibility and to rebut the existence and extent of claimed injuries.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion by barring Williams from explaining that she retained counsel after dealing with the defendant’s claims adjuster.
- The court concluded Rule 411 did not require exclusion because the testimony was offered for a collateral purpose (explaining attorney retention and rebutting an inference of litigiousness), not to prove negligence or wrongful conduct.
- Applying Rule 403, the court determined the probative value of the explanation was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly given the defense’s use of the attorney-retention question to imply improper motive.
- The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial on all issues, finding the exclusion prejudicial to the jury’s assessment of Williams’s credibility and damages.

## Legal Principles

- Cross-examination about when a plaintiff retained counsel may be admissible to impeach claims of injury and test credibility where injury extent is a central dispute.
- N.C. R. Evid. 411 bars evidence of liability insurance when offered to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, but permits such evidence when offered for another relevant purpose.
- When one party elicits testimony that creates an adverse inference, fairness may require allowing the opposing party to provide a brief contextual explanation, subject to Rule 403.
- Under N.C. R. Evid. 403, relevant evidence may be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; excluding a necessary explanation can be an abuse of discretion when it distorts the fact-finder’s evaluation of motive and credibility.

## Conclusion

The appellate court permitted inquiry into the timing of attorney retention because it bore on credibility and claimed injury extent, but ordered a new trial after concluding the trial court wrongly prevented the plaintiff from explaining that her decision to retain counsel followed an encounter with the defendant’s claims adjuster, a collateral purpose not barred by Rule 411 and not properly excluded under Rule 403.


Williams v. McCoy, 145 N.C. App. 111, 550 S.E.2d 796 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)