Auto Accidents

Maryland Court of Appeals Upholds “Gap” Insurance Policy in Pedestrian Accident Case

October 31, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals interpreted the “gap” provision of an auto insurance policy in Connors v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 442 Md. 466 (2015). In Connors, the plaintiff and her husband were walking in their neighborhood when they were struck by a vehicle backing out of a driveway. The plaintiff and her husband suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident, and her husband eventually died from his injuries.

The terms of the GEICO insurance policy of the plaintiff and her husband included underinsured motorist coverage of $300,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The driver’s auto insurance policy was limited to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. However, the amount of damages of the plaintiff and her husband exceeded all available insurance. The plaintiff settled with the driver’s insurance company for the limits of the driver’s liability insurance, paying $100,000 to the plaintiff and $100,000 to her husband before he died. The plaintiff then submitted claims for underinsured motorist coverage to GEICO under their own insurance policy, seeking $300,000 total. GEICO agreed that the plaintiff was owed an additional $100,000 under the terms of her policy, but they were in dispute as to the additional $200,000. The plaintiff subsequently brought an action for a declaratory judgment against GEICO regarding the payment of the $200,000 in underinsured motorist coverage benefits.

Maryland Court Holds that Driver Is Not Covered as a Dependent of Policy Holder

October 29, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a particularly fact-based ruling, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled that a non-related person living with a policy holder was not covered as a dependent person for the purposes of an “umbrella” insurance policy. In Rigby v. Allstate Indem. Co., (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sept. 30, 2015), the driver was using a vehicle owned by the policy holder when he struck and injured three people on the side of the road. The injured plaintiffs brought negligence claims against the driver for an amount that exceeded the amount of liability coverage on the vehicle.

At the time of the accident, the driver was living with the vehicle’s owner, who maintained two separate policies with the insurance company. The automobile insurance policy covered the vehicle involved in the accident for up to $500,000. The umbrella policy provided up to $5 million of coverage for negligence, and it defined “insured person” to include any dependent person in the policy holder’s care, if that person is a resident of the household. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment from the circuit court that the driver was not covered by the umbrella policy. The circuit court found that the driver was not a dependent person covered under the policy, and the matter was appealed.

Maryland Auto Insurance Policy Lapses Day Before Fatal Accident; Court Provides No Relief to Driver

October 6, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a case with startling facts leading to worst-case scenario consequences, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals examined whether the insurance coverage of a driver expired just one day prior to a fatal accident. In Price v. State Farm Insurance Company (Md. Ct. Spec. App. September 14, 2015), the driver struck and killed someone crossing the street in a motorized wheelchair. As a result of the accident, the deceased’s heirs and estate filed an injury action against the driver.

In Price, the driver was delinquent in making his premium payment. On January 11, 2012, the insurance company sent a notice that, unless the premium was paid, his policy would be canceled on January 24, 2012 at 12:01 a.m. The letter also stated that, if payment was received any time after that date and time, the insurance company would inform him of whether and when the policy would be reinstated. It specifically added that there would be no coverage between the date and time of cancellation and the date and time of reinstatement.

Sometime on January 24, 2012, the driver’s wife mailed an electronic payment from her back to the insurance company, stating that it was intended to pay for the driver’s policy premium. Although the payment was processed on January 24, 2012, it was not received by the insurance company until January 26, 2012. In addition, the payment was applied to the wife’s, not the driver’s, auto policy. On the following evening of January 25, 2012, the driver hit and killed the deceased.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Dismisses Negligence Action Against Adult Who Allowed Underage Drinking at Her Residence

September 30, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently issued an opinion regarding a negligence action brought by the mother of a deceased minor against a host who allowed minors to consume alcohol at her home. The circuit court granted the defendant-host’s motion to dismiss the negligence claim, holding that no legal cause of action existed against the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

In Davis v. Stapf, Md. Ct. Sp. App. (2015), the defendant purchased alcohol for high school classmates of her son to consume at a party in the defendant’s home. The plaintiff alleged that, despite the defendant’s actual knowledge that they were intoxicated, the defendant allowed a partygoer to leave the party with the plaintiff’s son in his truck. Shortly after leaving the defendant’s residence, the driver crashed the truck, killing the plaintiff’s son. The defendant was charged with allowing underage persons to drink alcohol in violation of CL § 10-117(b).

To prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was under a duty to protect the victim from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the victim suffered an injury, and the injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty. A breach of a statutory duty is considered evidence of negligence only if (1) the victim was a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, (2) the injury suffered was the type the statute was designed to prevent, and (3) the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Rules Defendant’s Lack of Insurance Admitted in Error, Reverses Jury Award

August 23, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a case published earlier this year, Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc. v. Perry, 108 A.3d 558 (2015), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the question of whether evidence of a defendant’s lack of liability insurance is admissible for purposes of establishing a negligent hiring claim.

The plaintiff sustained serious injuries after being struck by a dump truck while crossing an intersection. The dump truck was not covered by liability insurance at the time of the accident, as required by Maryland law. The plaintiff then brought a personal injury suit against the defendants, which included a claim of negligent hiring against ACS, the business that hired the trucking company to haul its materials. The jury verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and he was awarded damages in the amount of $529,500. ACS appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the driver’s lack of insurance at trial.

Although lack of insurance is generally inadmissible to prove that a person acted negligently, it may be used for other purposes if it is relevant to the elements of the claim. For a negligent hiring claim, the court looked to whether the lack of insurance rendered the driver incompetent to do the job, and whether it was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court stated that the lack of insurance coverage could be relevant to the first issue of the driver’s competence, depending on the job he performed. Since ACS was not allowed to have truck operators who did not produce insurance, the fact that the driver was uninsured did relate to his competence to transport materials on state highways. The driver’s lack of liability insurance, therefore, was relevant to whether the business employed a competent person.

Maryland Court Rules in Favor of Insurance Company in Car Accident Settlement Case

July 30, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A recent case decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the issues of whether an insurance company may waive its right to receive written notice of a settlement offer from a motor vehicle insurance liability insurer, as required under Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-511, and whether the insurance company must demonstrate prejudice in order to deny uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist coverage to its insured in cases where it did not consent to the settlement offer.

Woznicki v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 115 A.3d 152 (Md. 2015) involved two car accident cases with the same issues presented to the court. In the first case, Woznicki received an offer from the at-fault driver’s insurance company for its policy limits ($20,000), in exchange for her release of all liability claims against it and its insured. Pursuant to the terms of her insurance policy, as well as Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-511, Woznicki was required to notify GEICO in writing of any settlement offer and obtain consent from GEICO before agreeing. While Woznicki’s attorney did provide written notification to GEICO of the settlement and request for consent, it was sent on the same day that Woznicki had signed the release accepting the settlement offer from the liability insurer. Woznicki argued later at trial that her attorney had obtained an oral consent to settle when he spoke with a GEICO claims representative on the phone. Nevertheless, although Woznicki’s policy with GEICO provided UM/UIM coverage of $300,000, GEICO denied her claim because of her failure to obtain its consent to settle with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. The second case also involved a plaintiff who accepted the tortfeasor’s liability coverage before her insurance company consented to the offer.

Court of Appeals of Maryland Finds Underinsured Motorist Policy Applicable in Single Vehicle Car Accident Settlement Case

July 15, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland recently had before it an appeal stemming from a single-vehicle car accident. In the case, Brethren Mutual Ins. v. Buckley, 86 A. 3d 665 (2014), the plaintiff was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her boyfriend that was involved in an accident, causing the plaintiff to suffer a personal injury.

The driver of the vehicle had an insurance policy with a limitation of $100,000 worth of coverage. Even though the plaintiff had medical bills in excess of $200,000, she agreed to settle the claim with the driver’s insurance, and she signed a release of claims related to that acceptance. She then attempted to pursue coverage for the remainder of her expenses under her uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) policy with her insurance provider, Brethren.

Brethren attempted to enforce the release on the grounds that, since all parties had been released in regards to the claim, that included the company. The trial court agreed with Brethren and granted its motion for summary judgment on the basis of the terms of the release.

wrongful death caused by intoxicated driver

December 23, 2011 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent wrongful death claim a Missouri police officer allegedly caused an accident that resulted in four deaths. A settlement was reached for $ 2.25 million to the surviving family members of the deceased parties. The driver, a police officer, was apparently intoxicated at the time of the collision and had significant blood alcohol levels in her blood even three hours after the accident. Read more about wrongful death cases here.

Bus accident
12/08/2011 09:35:27 AM

A jury in New York recently awarded 7.5 million dollars to two women who were involved in a bus accident. Apparently, the bus ran a red light and struck an automobile, thereby causing significant injuries to the two women. The bus company was offered a settlement of $ 3 million but declined. Now they are exposed to the 7.5 million verdict. Bus accident can be particularly catastrophic because of the size of the bus and the inability to stop a bus as quickly as an automobile. If you or a loved one is involved in a bus accident, call the Law Firm of foran & Foran, P.A. Continue Reading ›

Ski accident leads to settlement for beginner student

June 25, 2010 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Dartmouth College recently settled a lawsuit with regarding a student who was injured in a skiing accident that occurred while she was taking a skiing class. Apparently, the student skied into a tree during class. She was not wearing a helmet and was just a beginner. The student remained in a coma for 6 months before dying. This was a confidential settlement. Although there was probably an element of assumption of the risk in this case, the fact that the instructor did not have a beginning student wearing a helmet probably is what caused the defendant to agree to a settlement.

Car Accident on Ice or Snow

February 8, 2010 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

There are several reported Maryland cases regarding automobile accidents on ice or snow. They include Larkins v. Balt. Transit, 249 Md. 305; Billmeyer v. State f/u/o Whiteman, 192 Md. 419; Wolfe v. State f/u/o Brown, 173 Md. 103; and Trusty v. Wooden, 251 Md. 294. A person must use reasonable care when driving on ice or snow. This could include reducing speed and being aware of longer stopping distances. Car Accident on Ice or snow.

Slip and Fall Evidence
02/04/2010 09:34:32 AM

Slip and Fall. The case law in Maryland suggests that in order to prevail on a slip and fall case where liquid has been left on the floor Continue Reading ›