Federal Rule of Evidence 803 and comparable State rules create numerous exceptions to the prohibition against the admission of hearsay.

United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 264-265 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of agent's testimony as to attorney's statement as an admission of a party by an agent because "the government....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

Fed. R. Evid. 411 ("...This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.").The rule barring the use of liability insurance or its absence on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct does not bar such evidence about liability insurance if such evidence is offered on an issue other than negligence or wrongful conduct.

Cf. United States v. Walker, 410 F.3d 754, 758 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion into evidence of the videotaped statement to the police under the residual hearsay exception because declarant had every....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.