If an insurance company wishes to introduce evidence of fraud at trial, what motion might they file in response to an objection from the plaintiff?

The correct choice is to file a motion for leave to amend the answer. In the context of introducing evidence of fraud at trial, if an insurance company anticipates that the plaintiff will object to this evidence, it may need to officially incorporate the fraud claim into its pleadings. By filing a motion for leave to amend its answer, the insurance company seeks the court's permission to add allegations related to fraud that were not included in the original answer.

Amending the answer to include a fraud defense helps ensure that the plaintiff is adequately notified of the claims being asserted and allows the insurance company to introduce relevant evidence effectively at trial. This procedural step is essential in maintaining fairness and ensuring that both parties can prepare their cases with complete knowledge of the issues being litigated.

The other options are less relevant to the situation. Expanding discovery would not directly address the objection at trial regarding the introduction of evidence. A directed verdict motion is made during or after trial when one party believes that there is not enough evidence for the other party to establish its case, rather than concerning the introduction of specific evidence. A motion for reconsideration is typically a request for the court to review and change a prior ruling and is not applicable in the context of preparing to introduce evidence at trial.