[streakn]

Originally Posted by MACHrophage

Florida Orange...I have not been in traffic court in years...I am currently in the gun unit of my office...However when I did handle traffic violations the insurance co. often worked with us...they try to get restitution ($$$) from the defendant if he or she was at fault ( like in a stolen auto case) additionally, if the defendent is found criminally liable that makes the civil case against him/her a breeze because the civil court can take "judicial notice" of the criminal courts findings...( in plain english the insurance co. does not have to work very hard to show that the defendant was at fault).

In the situation you describe the insurance co. could have been talking about admissibilty of the officer's arrest report. The general rule is that your only allowed to testify about what you yourself saw, heard, smelt, tasted, felt ( your own personal observations) anything based on another's personal observations is generally considered hearsay and is not admissible. The insurance co. was probably saying that since the officer did not see the incident himself, he could not testify to what was in his report. ( because his report is based on the observations of others).

Hope this was helpful

You are the man Machrophage.LOL