Personal Injury

Maryland Plaintiff Wins Lawsuit Seeking Uninsured Motorist Coverage Equal to Policy Liability Limits

May 11, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

It is important to be aware of changes in Maryland motor vehicle insurance laws that may affect your coverage with your automobile insurer. A January 31, 2018 Maryland car accident case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland illustrates the difficulties that may arise if coverage expectations are not met.

In the case, the plaintiff brought suit against her own insurance company for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits after she was involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver and suffered injuries. The insurance company denied her claim, arguing that her UM coverage was limited to $75,000, despite a $300,000 liability limit on her policy.

Under Maryland’s motor vehicle insurance laws, unless waived, the amount of UM coverage provided under a car insurance policy must equal the amount of liability coverage provided under the policy. The statute requiring equal coverage was effective only for motor vehicle insurance policies issued or delivered on or after October 1, 1992. To waive equality coverage, the first named insured must sign a statement in writing to that effect.

Maryland Court of Appeals Rules Medical Records Were Properly Disclosed to Jury in Car Accident Case

May 8, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

When pursuing a lawsuit for personal injury damages arising out of a Maryland car accident, the plaintiff must prove the amount of loss caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defense can present its own evidence and witnesses to rebut the plaintiff’s proof. In a February 2, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the primary issue was whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view medical records used by an expert witness in giving his opinion.

The plaintiff in the case was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended by the defendant. Over the next three years, the plaintiff was treated for a variety of health issues, including her shoulder. She filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s negligent driving caused her injuries. While a rear-end accident is almost always caused by negligent driving, the main focus at trial was whether all of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by the accident.

During the trial, the defendant presented his expert witness, an orthopedic surgeon who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to the litigation. The expert testified that, based on his examination of the plaintiff and a review of her medical records, he believed many of the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident but instead were results of preexisting or unrelated conditions. Although the plaintiff had not introduced some of her prior medical records into evidence, the defendant moved to enter them into evidence. The trial court ruled that since the expert had relied on them in forming his opinion, the records could be admitted into evidence and shared with the jury.

Maryland Car Accident Victims Sue Insurer After Claim Denied Under Policy Exclusion

April 25, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Disagreements between victims and an insurance company regarding coverage for a car accident are common. In some instances, legal action is taken to address the dispute. In a January 8, 2018 case, the plaintiffs brought suit against their insurance company for denying their claim. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the insurance company appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiffs in the case owned two vehicles, which were insured by two different insurance companies. One car was insured by the defendant with uninsured/underinsured limits of $100,000. Their van was insured by a different company under a policy with uninsured/underinsured limits of $50,000.

The plaintiffs were driving the van when another car collided with them. The other driver was determined to be at fault for the accident. Accordingly, the driver’s insurance company settled with the plaintiffs for the full amount of the driver’s policy limit of $50,000. The plaintiffs then filed a uninsured/underinsured claim under their policy with the defendant on their other car, seeking coverage in excess of the $50,000 settlement. The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ claim for uninsured/underinsured coverage, based on the owned-but-otherwise-insured exclusion.

Maryland Court Reviews Jury Verdict in Rear-End Automobile Collision

April 24, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In many cases, a rear-end car accident is caused by a negligent driver. In order to recover compensation from the other driver, however, a plaintiff must prove that he also suffered an injury or loss and that his injuries were caused by the driver’s negligence. In a January 3, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a personal injury claim involving a rear-end accident. The parties stipulated that the defendant was negligent in causing the accident, but they left the issues of causation and damages for the jury to decide. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

In the case, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff as he was stopped at a red light at an intersection. The impact caused the plaintiff’s car to collide with an SUV that was in front of his. Nevertheless, the plaintiff’s airbags did not deploy, and there was no damage to the vehicles other than a scratch to the plaintiff’s rear bumper. The parties were able to drive away from the accident scene, and the defendant was uninjured.

The plaintiff dropped off his passenger after the accident and drove himself to the emergency room. The doctors took an x-ray of his shoulder and said he could return to work in two days. A week later, the plaintiff sought treatment from his primary care physician, who referred him to another doctor. The doctor treated the plaintiff over the course of two years, providing rehab and physical therapy services. The plaintiff was able to continue playing sports throughout the time.

Maryland Court Holds Out-of-State Insurance Policy Excluding Coverage for Lead Exposure Does Not Violate Public Policy

April 23, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

With the state’s abundance of older buildings and housing structures, many Maryland residents have suffered from exposure to lead-based paint. Some Maryland lead paint victims have pursued a negligence claim against their landlords and property owners to recover compensation for their injuries. A December 18, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland is relevant to consider when bringing a claim arising out of lead exposure, particularly against out-of-state insurance companies and property owners.

The matter was brought before the Maryland court by the U.S. District Court, before which was pending a lead paint case. The District Court sought an answer to the question of whether the pollution exclusion contained in the defendant’s Georgia insurance policy, which excluded coverage for bodily injuries resulting from the ingestion of lead-based paint, violated Maryland public policy.

The plaintiffs in the case had been exposed to lead-based paint at a property owned by the defendant in Maryland. The plaintiffs brought suit against the defendant and the defendant’s insurance company, claiming that the insurance company was obligated to indemnify the defendant. The insurance company contended that it was under no such obligation, since the defendant’s general liability insurance policy, which was purchased in Georgia, did not cover injuries resulting from pollutants such as lead-based paint. The plaintiffs argued that the exclusion, although valid under Georgia law, was against Maryland’s public policy and could not be enforced in the state.

Maryland Gunshot Victim Wins Claim for Insurance Coverage of Pub’s Negligence Settlement

April 22, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Insurance coverage can be crucial if substantial damages are awarded in a personal injury claim. In some instances, the plaintiff must undergo another court battle against the defendant’s insurance company to obtain a judgment. Guidance from an experienced Maryland premises liability attorney is particularly beneficial in cases involving insurance firms, as demonstrated in a July 27, 2017 case.

The plaintiff in the case had visited a pub to watch a basketball game. As he was opening the door to exit the pub, he was struck by a bullet. The shooter was neither apprehended nor identified. The pub and the plaintiff reached a consent judgment agreement, in which the pub admitted negligence and agreed to a settlement of $100,000 for medical expenses and noneconomic damages. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a demand on the pub’s insurance company for payment of the settlement, which was denied. The plaintiff then filed an action for breach of contract against the insurance company. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $100,000. The insurance company appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The policy at issue contained an provision that excluded coverage for bodily injuries arising out of assault and battery. The primary issue for the court, therefore, was whether or not the shooting incident constituted a battery under the policy exclusion. The appeals court noted that there was no evidence regarding the identity of the shooter or whether the shooting was intentional or accidental. The absence of such evidence also raised the question of whether the intent of the shooter must be established to distinguish the injury from one that arises out of an accident. The court answered the question affirmatively, explaining that if evidence of intent was not necessary, virtually all bodily injuries caused by another person would be barred under the policy exclusion, including accidental injuries.

Maryland Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Enabling Plaintiff to Advance Lead Exposure Case

April 21, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Failing to follow procedural rules and deadlines set in a court case can result in serious consequences, including dismissal. In a November 9, 2017 Maryland lead paint case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the plaintiff sought to reverse a summary judgment entered by the trial court on her negligence claim, stemming from a missed discovery deadline.

In the case, the plaintiff alleged that she had been poisoned by lead-based paint while living in a property owned and managed by the defendants. The plaintiff had identified an expert witness to testify regarding his opinion that the defendant’s property contained lead-based paint and that the plaintiff’s exposure to that lead-based paint caused her injuries. The plaintiff had also obtained a report from an environmental testing company that found lead in the defendant’s property, but the report wasn’t completed and produced until 14 days after the discovery period closed.

The defendants moved to strike the report from evidence as untimely, and to strike the expert’s testimony on the ground that he lacked a sufficient factual basis for his opinion, i.e., the report. The trial court granted the motions to strike. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, based on the lack of expert testimony. The trial court granted the motion, denying the plaintiff any recovery for her injuries. The plaintiff then brought an appeal.

Maryland Car Accident Case Involves Issue of Reasonable Care When Facing a Sudden Emergency

April 19, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To succeed in a Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to use reasonable care. The standard of care required often depends on the circumstances of the case. In a Maryland car accident case, for example, a driver is expected to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others. A November 14, 2017 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland illustrates how the standard of care may vary when a person driving on icy roads is faced with a sudden emergency.

In the case, the plaintiff was driving her family minivan at night on an wet and icy road. The defendant drove an armored truck behind her at a distance of approximately two vehicle lengths. When the plaintiff suddenly stopped her van, the defendant immediately applied his brakes but slid on the road. In an attempt to avoid hitting the plaintiff’s van, the defendant swerved to the right and moved his truck onto an elevated grassy area beside the road. Although the defendant avoided a direct collision, his truck clipped the rear bumper of the plaintiff’s van. The plaintiff subsequently filed a negligence claim against the defendant.

After trial, the jury was instructed to measure the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions compared to those of other drivers facing the same sudden and real emergency. The jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant was not negligent. The plaintiff appealed the verdict, arguing that the trial court erred in providing the jury instruction for acts in emergencies. In particular, the plaintiff contended that it was not sufficiently supported by the evidence.

Maryland Appeals Court Upholds Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendant in Rear-End Car Accident Case

April 16, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Proving that a negligent driver caused a plaintiff’s injuries can be difficult in some car accident cases, as illustrated in a September 26, 2017 case before the Court of Special Appeals. It can help, however, to hire a dedicated Maryland car accident attorney to ensure that the facts are presented persuasively to a jury. The plaintiff in the case brought a negligence claim against the driver who rear-ended her vehicle as they were both merging onto a traffic circle. After a jury found the defendant was not negligent, the plaintiff appealed.

At the time of the accident, the defendant was driving behind the plaintiff in the same direction as they approached a traffic circle in the middle of three lanes. The plaintiff stopped her vehicle, as did the defendant. The defendant testified that she saw the plaintiff started to accelerate, which prompted her to accelerate into the circle. The defendant checked her blind spot to check traffic, and in that brief interval, their vehicles collided. The plaintiff, however, testified that she had been at a complete stop for some time when the defendant rear-ended her.

In Maryland, every driver must exercise the degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under similar circumstances. In a rear-end collision, the question of whether the following driver neglected to use care is ordinarily for the jury to decide. Only in exceptional cases, in which it is clear that reasonable minds would not differ with regard to the facts, will the court disturb a jury verdict on the question of negligence. The question on appeal, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant was not negligent.

Plaintiff Wins Maryland Negligence Case Against Property Manager for Lead Exposure

April 16, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Serious medical conditions can result from exposure to lead, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland lead paint action. In the November 1, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a jury verdict finding a property manager liable for damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who had resided in a property with lead paint, brought a negligence claim against the property manager, alleging that he suffered cognitive injuries caused by lead exposure. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently appealed the judgment.

The plaintiff in the case had been exposed to lead paint at a property managed, maintained, operated, and controlled by the defendant. At trial, the parties stipulated that, due to the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff was exposed to deteriorating paint, which substantially contributed to two documented elevated blood lead levels. The only remaining questions for the jury, therefore, were whether the lead exposure caused an injury to the plaintiff, and if so, which, if any, damages were incurred. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded approximately 1.2 million dollars in damages.

On appeal, the defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that his lead exposure caused any injury. Although the plaintiff’s expert witness testified that the plaintiff suffered cognitive deficits and a four-point loss in IQ as a result of childhood exposure to lead, the defendant argued that this conclusion was not based on any evidence that lead exposure can cause such deficits.