Underinsured and
Uninsured Motorist
Coverage in a Maryland
Personal InjuryAs discussed it is just
as important to your
recovery that there is
adequate insurance
coverage to compensate
you when you are
injured. Proving
liability and damages is
fine and necessary, but
insurance coverage is
just as critical to a
successful outcome. So
where does the money
come from? Initially,
you can look to the
defendant drivers policy
for coverage. However,
in the event that
insurance is inadequate
to compensate your
injury then what? Well
then you can turn to
your own insurance
policy under the
uninsured/underinsured
provisions of the
policy. That is why
immediately after an
accident my office
contacts not only the
defendant drivers
insurance company but we
also contact the
client's insurance
company for the
declaration sheet which
outlines our client's
coverage. We are looking
for several pieces of
information. One is
personal injury
protection coverage or
PIP, the other is rental
car coverage, then
collision coverage, and
then un/uim coverage
(uninsured/underinsured
coverage). And just to
mention there are a few
things you need to know
about settlement and un/uim
coverage. First before
you can even become
eligible for the um/uim
coverage the defendant
policy must be offered
in total. Secondly there
is a notice requirement
to your insurance
carrier before you can
finalize the settlement.
Specifically, please
review below for
the statute that
outlined the settlement
procedure. This part of
the settlement is not as
complicated as it may
look. Essentially once
you have the written
settlement offer for
policy limits from the
defendant you forward
that by certified mail
to the UM carrier. They
then have 60 days to
accept or reject the
offer. In either case
you still receive the
defendant's settlement
offer. You either
receive it from the
defendant (acceptance by
the UM) or you receive
it from the UM carrier
(rejection by the UM).
Where is does become
complicated is when the
defendant offers his
policy with in 60 days
of trial and/or when the
original injury arose
out of work. For
example, when you are
involved in a car
accident while you are
working. In the case of
an offer made with in 60
days of trial the
complication arises when
the UM decision is not
due until after the
trial date. The
complication is obvious.
The sole remedy at this
point in time is to
request a postponement
of the trial date. I
have had success with
the motion for
postponement citing the
case of Ohio Casualty
Insurance Company v
Chamberlin, 172 Md. App.
229, 914 A.2d 160
(2007). (see
www.marylandinjuryattorney.blogspot.com).
In the situations where
there is also a workers
compensation case
attached to the personal
injury case you have the
problems of workers
compensation credits
against the original
defendant policy limits
offer and arguably also
against the UM recovery
(at this time MD law has
not voiced a position on
this credit). Many argue
the UM is credited to
the workers compensation
claim when the employer
paid for the UM policy
such as when you were
injured at work while
driving a company car. I
have resolved three of
these cases in the past
year. Each case had mid
six figure recoveries.
Each involved an
employee injured during
work which gave rise to
a third party claim
(claim against the
defendant driver) and a
workers compensation
claim. If you have any
questions please feel
free to call me. I am
happy to discuss the
case with you over the
phone.
§
19-511.
Uninsured motorist
coverage--settlement
procedures
(a) if an injured person
receives a written offer
from a motor vehicle
insurance liability
insurer or that
insurer's authorized
agent to settle a claim
for bodily injury or
death, and the amount of
the settlement offer, in
combination with any
other settlements
arising out of the same
occurrence, would
exhaust the bodily
injury or death limits
of the applicable
liability insurance
policies, bonds, and
securities, the injured
person shall send by
certified mail, to
any insurer that
provides uninsured
motorist coverage for
the bodily injury or
death, a copy of the
liability insurer's
written settlement
offer.
(b)
Within 60 days after
receipt of the notice
required under
subsection (a) of this
section, the uninsured
motorist insurer shall
send to the injured
person:(1) written
consent to acceptance of
the settlement offer and
to the execution of
releases; or (2)
written refusal to
consent to acceptance of
the settlement offer.
(c) Within 30 days
after a refusal to
consent to acceptance of
a settlement offer under
subsection (b)(2) of
this section, the
uninsured motorist
insurer shall pay to the
injured person the
amount of the settlement
offer. (d) (1) payment
as described in
subsection (c) of this
section shall preserve
the uninsured motorist
insurer's subrogation
rights against the
liability insurer and
its insured. (2) Receipt
by the injured person of
the payment described in
subsection (c) of this
section shall constitute
the assignment, up to
the amount of the
payment, of any recovery
on behalf of the injured
person that is
subsequently paid from
the applicable liability
insurance policies,
bonds, and securities.
(e) The injured person
may accept the liability
insurer's settlement
offer and execute
releases in favor of the
liability insurer and
its insured without
prejudice to any claim
the injured person may
have against the
uninsured motorist
insurer:(1) on receipt
of written consent to
acceptance of the
settlement offer and to
the execution of
releases; or (2) if the
uninsured motorist
insurer has not met the
requirements of
subsection (b) or
subsection (c) of this
section.
So
WHAT ABOUT THE
PASSENGER. Suppose you
are injured and you were
a passenger in the car.
Assume there is not
enough insurance to go
around and compensate
everyone that was
injured. And just to
mention this happens a
lot particularly with
car pooling where you
now have multiple people
in a single car. Well
the good news is there
is still insurance
coverage. As a passenger
you can turn to the
defendant's policy, also
you can turn to the host
vehicle um/uim policy
and you can also turn to
your own automobile
insurance policy under
your um/uim coverage.
19-513.
Limitations on
recovery of benefits
(a) This section does
not prohibit a nonprofit
health service plan or
an authorized insurer,
with the approval of the
Commissioner, from
providing medical,
hospital, and disability
benefits in connection
with motor vehicle
accidents.
(b) Notwithstanding any
other provision of this
subtitle, a person may
not recover benefits
under the coverage
described in §§ 19-504,
19-505, 19-509, and
19-512 of this subtitle
from more than one motor
vehicle liability
insurance policy or
insurer on a duplicative
or supplemental basis.
(c)(1) The insurer of a
motor vehicle for which
the coverage described
in § 19-505 of this
subtitle is in effect
shall pay the benefits
described in § 19-505 of
this subtitle to an
individual who is
injured in a motor
vehicle accident:
(i) while occupying
the insured motor
vehicle; or
(ii) by the insured
motor vehicle as a
pedestrian, while
in, on, or alighting
from a vehicle
powered by animal or
muscular power, or
while on or
alighting from an
animal.
(2) An insurer may
not pay benefits
under paragraph (1)
of this subsection
to an individual who
is in violation of §
17-103 of the
Transportation
Article.
(d)(1) The insurer under
a policy that contains
the coverages described
in §§ 19-505 and 19-509
of this subtitle shall
pay the benefits
described in §§ 19-505
and 19-509 to an
individual insured under
the policy who is
injured in a motor
vehicle accident:
(i) while occupying
a motor vehicle for
which the coverages
described in §§
19-505 and 19-509 of
this subtitle are
not in effect; or
(ii) by a motor
vehicle for which
the coverages
described in §§
19-505 and 19-509 of
this subtitle are
not in effect as a
pedestrian, while
in, on, or alighting
from a vehicle
powered by animal or
muscular power, or
while on or
alighting from an
animal.
(2) Benefits payable
under paragraph (1)
of this subsection
shall be reduced to
the extent of any
medical or
disability benefits
coverage that is:
(i) applicable to
the motor vehicle
for which the
coverages described
in §§ 19-505 and
19-509 of this
subtitle are not in
effect; and
(ii) collectible
from the insurer of
that motor vehicle.
(e) Benefits payable
under the coverages
described in §§ 19-505
and 19- 509 of this
subtitle shall be
reduced to the extent
that the recipient has
recovered benefits under
the workers'
compensation laws of a
state or the federal
government for which the
provider of the workers'
compensation benefits
has not been reimbursed.
On this same point
please review
Thomas SCHULER, et
ux.v.ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, et al.
81
Md.App. 499, 568 A.2d
873
On August 8, 1986,
appellant was
standing beside his
1983 Camaro when he
was
struck and was
seriously injured by
an automobile driven
by an uninsured
motorist.
At the time he was
injured, appellant's
car was insured by
Maryland Automobile
Insurance Fund (MAIF).
The limits of the
MAIF policy were
$20,000 per person,
$40,000 per
accident. His wife
is currently the
general manager for
all of the stores
operated by Rainbow
Hair Designers. Mrs.
Schuler's BMW was
insured under the
policy issued by
Erie to Rainbow, as
a benefit of her
employment. The
uninsured motorist
limits of the Erie
policy are $100,000
per person, $300,000
per accident.
Plainitff made his
claim against Erie
rather than against
MAIF, because of the
higher limits
available under the
Erie policy. That he
may make this
election between the
two carriers is
supported by the
holding in
Rafferty v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 303
Md. 63, 492 A.2d 290
(1985). By statute,
a recovery from one
carrier precludes a
recovery against the
other.
Erie contends,
the claim is not
covered by the Erie
policy, because the
definitions section
of the Erie policy
identifies the
subscriber as the
one who signs the
policy and the terms
in the policy
referring to “you,”
“your,” and “named
insured,” refer to
the subscriber,
cannot be
interpreted to
include either the
plaintiff or his
wife. The uninsured
motorist coverage
provided in the
policy, according to
Erie, applies to
Plaintiff's spouse
and other relatives
resident in his
household, but does
not extend to the
Plaintiff, who is
the spouse of the
owner of one of the
covered cars. Erie
concedes that the
BMW is a covered
vehicle and, as
such, is covered by
its policy as are
individuals
occupying the BMW or
struck by it. Erie
contends that,
inasmuch as the
Plaintiff was
injured while
standing outside of
his own car, in an
occurrence not
involving the BMW,
no payments are due
Plaintiff from
either the PIP or
uninsured motorist
coverages provided
by the Erie policy.
