The rule limiting the admissibility evidence about liability insurance applies both to evidence showing the absence of liability insurance and to evidence showing the existence of liability insurance.

United States v. Powell, 50 F.3d 94, 99-100 (1st Cir. 1995) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of guns and ammunition from the Fairlawn Estates apartment because "this evidence was more than adequate for the court to have allowed the jury to consider whether [accused]...Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary; "sufficient" means only that there must be enough evidence to make the other crime, wrong, or act relevant.

United States v. Ledford, 443 F.3d 702, 710 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of the testimony of Deputy Brodheim about Ms. Carey's statement [on being scared since defendant had told her he would kill....A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or condition.

Fed. R. Evid. 406 ("regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses").The admissibility of habit does not depend on the presence or absence of eyewitnesses.