Sandoz further submits ER 411 as a basis for admissibility. Evidence regarding availability of insurance is inadmissible on the issue of negligence pursuant to ER 411 unless relevant to an issue other than fault "such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness”. ER 411. A court may allow testimony regarding insurance to overcome the bar of ER 411 only for a proper purpose, such as to rebut an element of a claim, Kubista v. Romaine, 87 Wn.2d 62, 69, 549 P.2d 491 (1976), or to show bias by advising the jury of a witness’ relation to and interest in the case, Moy Quon v. Furuya Co., 81 Wash. 526, 531-32, 143 P. 99 (1914). In the present case, Sandoz has not shown the disputed testimony to be relevant to any element of a failure to wa P.2d 1213 (1994) (<HOLDING>). We find persuasive the majority of courts,
holding fifra preempts inadequate label claims but not claims for failure to warn through other channels holding oregon law extinction of failure to warn claims obviates need to decide fifra preemption issue holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment