Not true. In most states, the rules of evidence prohibit the jury from learning about insurance coverage, and the mere mention of "insurance" will cause a mistrial.
In THIS case, it was a one-car accident, the mother lost control on the ice. So their only hope would have been to sue the insurance company, which wouldn’t probably have worked.
IIRC, Maryland is a "no-fault" state. Most no-fault laws require each driver to look to their own insurance policy for medical coverage. An injured passenger in a one-car accident would be entitled to first party medical benefits subject to the policy limitations. In Maryland, the minimum coverage is $20,000/$40,000, which means coverage up to $20,000 per injured person, not to exceed $40,000 per incident. But again, this is the minimum coverage and nothing prohibits a person from buying greater coverage, which I highly recommend, particularly if the person has assets to protect or doesn't have any health insurance. (For example, I have a $500,000/$1,000,000 automobile policy and an additional $1,000,000 of coverage under an umbrella homeowners policy.) So if the Frost family only had the minimum automobile inusrance coverage, then they have failed their family twice.
One other point, under many no-fault laws, an injured passenger suffers "serious bodily injury" can sue the driver for pain and suffering and economic loss.
In one trial I was on the jury for, extensive questioning established the dollar figure without explicitly mentioning insurance. We all knew exactly what was being said.