This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Burress (Ps) contend that they should be allowed to present evidence of Trucking's (Ds) insurance. Ps acknowledge that evidence of insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence under Federal Rule of Evidence 411, but they plan to offer it for another purpose. Victor Guillen testified, as a corporate representative for D, that he believed Aguilera was a suitable driver because 'the insurance company said he was fine.' Ps want to show that Guillen relied on a third party's determination of Aguilera's fitness to drive instead of doing his own due diligence.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.