fees. DMC cross appeals the superior court’s reversal and asks this court to affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Hawkinses’ negligence claims for general damages. ANALYSIS I. The Hawkinses’ Appeal A. Liability Insurance ¶10 The Hawkinses first argue that the district court correctly excluded evidence of liability insurance. We agree. ¶11 ER 411 generally prohibits the introduction of evidence that a person did or did not possess liability insurance as proof that the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Bacon, 127 Wn.2d 50, 55, 896 P.2d 673 (1995) (noting that in general, evidence regarding availability of insurance is inadmissible on the issue of negligence under ER 411); Todd v. Harr, Inc., 69 Wn.2d 166, 168, 417 P.2d 945 (1966) (<HOLDING>); Kappelman v. Lutz, 141 Wn. App. 580, 590, 170
holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability holding that whether or not a personal injury defendant carries liability insurance is immaterial holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury