Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “Rules of Evidence
  1. Bruce Pritchett

    I oppose the proposed amendment to Utah Rule of Evidence 511. Evidentiary privileges have historically been granted only to the beneficiaries of important, confidential relationships such as:
    1. Attorney-client (client holds privilege);
    2. Doctor-patient (patient holds privilege);
    3. Priest-penitent (penitent holds privilege).
    This is the first instance, really, where a privilege is created for a routine business (mere insurance). It would make secret the very regulatory oversight of the insurance industry that is funded by taxpayer dollars, and intended to protect the public itself. Public oversight of an industry should remain public.
    Moreover, the insurance-funded secrecy would allow the insurance industry to be the holder of the privilege, rather than the clients/patients/penitents who have been the recipients of important services in the past.
    In essence, this allows the foxes to guard the henhouse–and in secret, as well.

  2. Jake Hinkins

    I agree with Bruce’s comment and oppose the amendment. This Rule appears to give unnecessary safeguards to insurance companies and would create additional difficulties in bad-faith insurance litigation.

  3. Troy Jensen

    Attorney-Client privilege exists to encourage disclosure without retaliation and grant access to justice for individuals thus promoting due process. Spousal privilege protects and promotes marriage and helps keep family together. Clergy-Penitent encourages wrongdoers to come forward and access help and services to their benefit. So what will privilege for insurance regulators do… let’s be frank and honest – it will replace much needed transparency with corruption. I’m curious to know who is promoting this rule and why?