Auto Accidents

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Rules Policy Exclusion Valid to Deny PIP Benefits

June 2, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Personal injury protection (PIP) coverage is offered by automobile insurance companies to cover additional medical costs and other expenses for personal injuries caused in car accidents, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently examined the availability of PIP coverage in Maryland Ins. Admin. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 15, 2016). At issue in the case was whether an exclusion in an automobile policy prevented an insured from receiving PIP coverage. The insured complained to the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) after being denied for PIP benefits, and the MIA imposed a penalty on the insurance company by ordering payment of PIP benefits with statutory interest. The decision was reversed by the circuit court, and subsequently appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.

The claimant was the owner of two vehicles, one of which was insured with the defendant insurance company under a policy that included PIP coverage. The other vehicle was driven as a taxicab and insured by a different insurance company under a policy that did not contain PIP coverage. The claimant was driving the taxicab when he was rear-ended by another automobile, causing personal injuries. The claimant filed for benefits with the defendant based on the policy covering the vehicle he was not driving. That policy contained a provision that excluded PIP coverage if the insured was in a vehicle he owned that was not insured under the policy. On appeal, MIA argued that Maryland law required the defendant to pay PIP benefits to its insured, regardless of the policy.

Maryland law requires insurers to provide coverage for the medical, hospital, and disability benefits for its insureds when they are injured in a motor vehicle accident, including an accident that involves an uninsured motor vehicle. The law, however, does allow insurers to exclude coverage for injuries that occur in uninsured vehicles owned by its insured. Since a taxicab is not within the statutory definition of motor vehicle, it is not required to carry PIP coverage as primary insurance for its occupants.

Maryland Court Affirms Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff in Car Accident Case

March 25, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decided whether summary judgment was appropriate in the case of Farouq v. Curran (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 5, 2016). In Farouq, the plaintiff was struck and injured while waiting at a bus stop by a police vehicle that skidded as a result of wet road conditions. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant police officer’s negligence led to the collision and was the cause of her injuries. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to establish negligence, and the motion was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff subsequently appealed that order.

In Maryland, a finding of negligence requires that the plaintiff allege and prove facts demonstrating that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered an actual injury or loss, and that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant provided the affidavit of an expert accident reconstructionist who had investigated the scene. The expert reported that the roadway was very slippery and that the potential for loss of control could occur at any speed. In addition, the expert found that the defendant’s speed was approximately 17 miles per hour, which was lower than the posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that since a jury is not required to accept the defendant’s expert testimony, it should not have been taken into consideration by the trial court. The Court of Special Appeals, however, held that a trial court may consider any admissible evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Maryland Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Limo Case

March 23, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury claim that was halted when the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In Geibel v. Z Best Limousine Serv., Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 3, 2016), the plaintiff was a passenger in a limousine operated by the defendant. The interior floor of the limousine was hardwood, over which a custom-made carpet with rubber backing was cut to fit the floorboard of the limo. When the plaintiff exited the limousine, the carpet slipped, and she fell to the ground outside of the limo. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for injuries she sustained as a result of the fall.

After discovery was complete, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there was no evidence that the carpet runner in the limousine was in an unsafe condition or that the defendant had any knowledge of an allegedly unsafe condition. In addition, there had been no other accidents in the limousine in which other passengers had slipped on the carpet, or reports of any other problems with the carpet not being secure. The trial court granted the motion on the basis that there was no evidence that the defendant was aware or had reason to be aware of any defect in the carpet.

In Maryland, the duty that an owner of property owes to persons entering onto the property varies according to the visitor’s status as an invitee, a licensee by invitation (i.e., a social guest), a bare licensee, or a trespasser. The highest duty is owed to a business invitee, defined as one invited or permitted to enter another’s property for purposes related to the landowner’s business. In Geibel, the plaintiff was an invitee, and as such, the defendant owed her a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the limousine safe, and to protect the plaintiff from injury caused by an unreasonable risk, which the plaintiff, by exercising ordinary care for her own safety, would not discover.

Maryland Court of Appeals Finds Sufficient Evidence Existed to Submit Plaintiff’s Claims to Jury

March 20, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals released a decision in the case of Beall v. Holloway-Johnson, which involved a collision between a police vehicle and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist’s mother brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the police officer and other defendants, claiming negligence, gross negligence, battery, and a violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. At trial, the lower court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff’s case on all the claims except negligence. The jury returned a $3.5 million verdict for compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff, which was reduced to $200,000 to comply with the damages cap under the Local Government Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to submit the plaintiff’s other claims to the jury, and that the counts alleged might also support an award of punitive damages. The Maryland Court of Appeals subsequently granted a writ of certiorari to consider the questions raised by the parties.

In Maryland, negligence is defined as conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. Gross negligence is more serious, and it occurs when a person inflicts injury intentionally or is so utterly indifferent to the rights of others that the person acts as if such rights did not exist. The distinction can be difficult to establish, since a legally sufficient case of ordinary negligence will frequently be enough to create a jury question of whether such negligence was or was not gross.

Maryland Court Reviews Jury Verdict in Motorcycle Accident Case

March 16, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently reviewed a jury decision finding that a defendant was not negligent in causing a car accident with the plaintiff. In Clark v. Dulaney, the parties were driving towards each other in opposite directions on the same two-lane road. An SUV in front of the plaintiff stopped to make a left turn at the same time the defendant’s minivan stopped to make a left turn. The plaintiff passed the SUV on his motorcycle, hitting the rear of the defendant’s minivan as she made a left turn. The plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that she failed to yield to the right of way of the plaintiff, which resulted in an accident that injured the plaintiff. After trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant, finding that she was not negligent, nor was her negligence the proximate cause of the accident.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reviews Expert Testimony in Automobile Accident Case

March 15, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent car accident case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals was presented with the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant’s medical expert to testify about a photograph of the damage to the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding. In Fusha v. Leonard (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sept. 24, 2015), the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, alleging that his negligence caused her injuries.

The parties agreed that the defendant was at fault for the accident. The issue for the jury was the amount of the plaintiff’s damages, if any. At trial, the defendant offered the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon, who provided his opinion as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the collision. The expert based part of his opinion on a photograph of the plaintiff’s vehicle that was admitted into evidence. The plaintiff objected to the testimony of the expert regarding the impact that was sustained to the upper part of the truck of her vehicle, and the trial court overruled that objection. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed the issue of the expert’s testimony to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, contending that he was not an expert in accident reconstruction and was not qualified to testify as to the nature or severity of the collision.

Maryland Court Rules in Favor of Insureds, Awards Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Moped and Motor Scooter Cases

December 14, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed two cases against the same insurance company, consolidated on appeal, regarding underinsured motorist coverage for damages suffered as the result of a car accident in which the insureds were operating a moped and a motor scooter. In Schiffler v. Erie, the plaintiff was riding his moped to work when a jeep collided with him, fracturing the plaintiff’s leg. The jeep driver’s insurance company tendered the policy limits to the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000. The plaintiff then sought underinsured motorist coverage from his own insurance company, which denied the claim, contending that coverage was excluded by the plaintiff’s policy. In Furman v. Erie, the facts were nearly identical except that the plaintiff in the case was riding a motor scooter. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, and the plaintiffs appealed.

A moped is defined as a bicycle operated by human power with the assistance of a motor, while a motor scooter is a nonpedal vehicle with a motor and automatic transmission. At the time of the two accidents, neither a moped nor a motor scooter was considered a motor vehicle under the Maryland Motor Vehicle Laws. Prior to October 12, 2012, therefore, owners of mopeds and motor scooters were not required by law to maintain insurance coverage for either type of vehicle, and neither plaintiff had purchased insurance expressly covering the moped and motor scooter involved in the accidents.

The insurance policies at issue in the cases excluded underinsured motorist coverage if the insured was injured while operating an “owned-but-uninsured” vehicle. The plaintiffs argued that the policy exclusion is contrary to the minimum coverage required by statutes applicable to operators of mopeds and motor scooters in Maryland at the time of the accident. Specifically, they argued that the statutory minimum coverage provisions precluded the defendant from relying upon the “owned-but-uninsured” exclusion in their policies to deny underinsured motorist claims for injuries occurring as a result of being hit by an underinsured driver while operating mopeds and motor scooters. The insurance company, on the other hand, argued that the exclusion is expressly authorized by Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-509(f), which provides that an insurer may exclude uninsured motorist benefits for an injury that occurs when the insured is occupying an uninsured motor vehicle that is owned by the insured.

Maryland Court Decides Issue of Insurance Coverage in Truck Accident

December 12, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed a wrongful death case involving a truck accident and addressed the issue of whether the defendant had insurance coverage. In Glass v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 5, 2015), the defendant’s employee was driving the company delivery van and lost control of it. The van swerved across the center lines and hit the victim’s vehicle head-on. The victim died of injuries caused by the accident shortly thereafter. The victim’s husband brought a personal injury negligence and wrongful death suit against the employee and the employer, and he later amended the complaint to include the employer’s insurer.

The parties disputed whether the accident was covered under the business policy issued by the insurer, due to the unintended entanglement of two separate legal entities of the employer. In 2004, the employer created a general partnership. The general partnership purchased and owned the van driven by the employee, as well as the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. However, when the employer formed an LLC in 2006, intending to merge the general partnership with the LLC, it was never properly completed. As a result, both companies remained in existence as separate legal entities, and the general partnership held title to the van and the insurance policy. Although the employer began conducting business in the name of the LLC, it was performing the contractual obligations of the general partnership.

The parties filed motions for declaratory judgment for the trial court to decide the issue of insurance coverage. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that at the time of the accident, the company was conducting business on behalf of the general partnership, and the van was owned by the general partnership. Therefore, the court held, the accident was not covered under the business policy through an exemption to a coverage exclusion for injuries arising out of the use of a non-owned automobile.

Maryland Court Reviews Appeal in Car Accident Case

December 10, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury case that arose out of a car accident. In Chaffman v. Estrada-Bernales (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 17, 2015), the plaintiff and his wife were stopped at a red light when the defendant’s vehicle rear-ended their SUV. The day after the accident, the plaintiff experienced stiffness in his right side, neck, and lower back and visited his primary care physician, who referred him to a chiropractor. After four to six weeks of chiropractic treatment, the plaintiff was referred to a pain management specialist and also underwent a surgical procedure to alleviate the pain. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the plaintiff had sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, arguing that since the defendant failed to answer the plaintiff’s request for admissions, its contents were deemed admitted. The defendant then filed an opposition to the motion and provided the plaintiff with a response to his request for admissions. The trial court ruled that the defendant had breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff but left the issue of damages to the jury. After trial, the jury found that the plaintiff was not injured in the accident and awarded no damages. The plaintiff appealed the verdict, contending that the judge erred by not granting his motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation and damages when the defendant failed to timely answer the request for admissions, and by not allowing the plaintiff to rebut a misleading closing argument made by the defendant’s counsel.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Addresses Insurer’s Liability in Car Accident Case

December 8, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals examined the matter of underinsured motorist coverage and setoff amounts in a recent opinion concerning a car crash case, Allstate v. Kponve. In Allstate, the insured was involved in a motor vehicle accident and brought suit against the other driver, alleging that his negligence resulted in a severe injury to her. Her insurance company, Allstate, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, contending that the other driver was likely an underinsured motorist and that Allstate may be bound by a judgment entered against him. The motion was granted. Allstate’s insured subsequently settled with the tortfeasor’s insurance company for his policy limits of $25,000, leaving Allstate as the remaining defendant.

After a trial, the jury found that the insured was not contributorily negligent, that the other driver caused the insured’s injuries, and that as a result of the accident, the insured suffered damages in the amount of $374,000. Allstate filed a motion to amend the judgment, requesting the court to reduce the judgment to $25,000. Allstate alleged that its insured’s policy had an underinsured motorist limit of $50,000 per individual, which should be reduced by the $25,000 settlement from the tortfeasor’s insurer. The trial court denied the motion, and Allstate appealed. On appeal, the court addressed the issues of whether the insurance company had the burden of proving the amount of underinsured motorist coverage and the amount of credit it was entitled to receive as the result of the settlement by the tortfeasor’s insurance company, if any.