What could be a consequence for the plaintiff due to a late objection to evidence of fraud by the insurance company?

The correct answer focuses on the implications of late objections to evidence. When a party raises an objection to evidence, it must typically do so in a timely manner, or it risks the possibility of the evidence being admitted at trial. If the objection is made late, the court may consider that the party has consented to the inclusion of the evidence, as they did not act promptly to contest it. This can result in the court allowing the evidence to be deemed admissible since the other party had a fair opportunity to prepare for its introduction, and the foundational requirements for a timely objection were not met.

By failing to promptly object to the evidence of fraud presented by the insurance company, the plaintiff potentially loses the chance to exclude that evidence from consideration, weakening their position in the case. Hence, the idea that the evidence may be deemed admissible if consent is implied through delay is a key principle in civil procedure, emphasizing the importance of timely objections.