Page:Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC (20-30038) Opinion.pdf/14

 The Casino claims that four types of evidence were erroneously and harmfully admitted at trial. We examine them one at a time.

A. AWR’s “F” rating by the BBB

The Casino argues the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of AWR’s “F” rating by the BBB. At trial, the evidence showed that the BBB relies entirely on complaints about a business and any supporting evidence provided in those complaints for its ratings. Depending on the business size, a company can be automatically rated “F” after two complaints are made against it without a response from the business. The BBB does not investigate the safety of work practices of a business beyond publiclypublicly-available [sic] information. All this means the BBB evidence is not very probative of the safety and competency of AWR. Still, as we earlier discussed, it might have been properly used by jurors as evidence of the Casino’s failure to investigate AWR adequately. Regardless, the district court has “great discretion” in admitting evidence that has any tendency to make any material fact more or less probable. ''Woods ex rel. Woods v. Int’l Harvester Co., Inc.'', 697 F.2d 635, 639 (5th Cir. 1983); 401. The evidence of the BBB rating at least added to the jurors’ understanding that the Casino missed another of the markers that could have led to further inquiry, even if the inquiry would not have led to much of significance. We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion by admitting this evidence.

B. AWR’s certificate of insurance

The Casino argues that the district court’s admission of evidence of AWR’s expired certificate of insurance entitles it to a new trial. The Casino relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 411, which makes inadmissible the existence or nonexistence of insurance for purposes of proving or disproving a party’s negligence. 411. Evidence of insurance is admissible for certain relevant purposes. Id. Here, AWR’s lack of insurance