Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

September 18, 2018

Maryland Begins to Require That Insurance Companies Offer Enhanced Underinsured Motorist Coverage

Maryland law requires that all motorists obtain a base level of car insurance in order to legally drive on the state’s public roads. Since 2011, Maryland drivers have been required to obtain underinsured or uninsured motorist (UIM) protection. This type of insurance compensates a motorist when an at-fault driver either has no insurance or does not have sufficient insurance to cover the injuries of a Maryland car accident victim.

Recently, Maryland legislature passed a new law requiring insurance companies to offer a new version of UIM insurance. Under the old UIM insurance policies, a motorist’s total recovery would be reduced by whatever insurance the at-fault driver had. For example, suppose a motorist was involved in a collision caused by another driver who had an insurance policy with a policy maximum of $50,000. If the injury victim’s policy max was $200,000, the injured motorist would only be able to obtain $150,000 from their own insurance company despite the fact that their policy limit is $200,000. This is because the old UIM statute counted the compensation from the at-fault party’s insurance policy toward the policy maximum of the injured motorist.

Under the new Enhanced Underinsured Motorist Coverage (EUIM), Maryland motorists will enjoy greater protection. Simply, an EUIM policy will not count the compensation received from an at-fault driver’s insurance company toward the policy maximum of the injured party. So, in the above example, the injured motorist would be able to recover a maximum of $50,000 from the at-fault motorist’s insurance company, and another $200,000 from their own insurance company.

September 11, 2018

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Car Accident Claim Against Police Officer

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury cases discussing an important issue that frequently arises in Maryland car personal injury cases that name a government employee or entity as a defendant. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s case against a police officer and the city that employed the officer could proceed to trial over the defendants’ claim that they were immune from liability under the state’s tort claims act.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer’s conduct at the time of the accident was within the scope of his duty and, while it may have been negligent, was not “reckless.” Thus, immunity was appropriate for both the individual officer and the city.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant police officer received a call that an intoxicated person was lying unconscious on the sidewalk outside a Days Inn. The officer hastily responded to the call, and cut through a parking lot on his way to the scene.

September 4, 2018

City May Be Liable for Injuries Following Accident Caused by Fallen Stop Sign

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a plaintiff’s case against the city that was responsible for maintaining the intersection where she was struck by another motorist could proceed to trial. The case presents important issues of government immunity that may arise in Maryland car accident cases that are filed against the state or federal government.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving northbound, and was approaching an intersection. As the plaintiff entered the intersection, she did not stop or slow down and continued through the intersection without seeing that another car was coming. The plaintiff was side-swiped by the other motorist and sustained serious injuries as a result.

The plaintiff later learned that the stop sign for northbound traffic had fallen and was lying on the ground. She explained that she did not see the stop sign or the car before entering the intersection. The plaintiff then filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city based on its failure to maintain the road signs at the intersection.

August 28, 2018

Court Upholds Accident Victim’s Preferred Venue in Recent UIM Case

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

In some Maryland car accident cases, where the case is filed and litigated may be one of the first disputed issues that must be resolved by the court. For example, most Maryland accident victims would prefer to file their cases in a convenient venue, making trips to court less burdensome. In some cases, certain other considerations may also come into play, such as the local court rules or customs.

In a recent state court appellate opinion, the court discussed whether the defendant’s request to transfer the plaintiff’s case to a venue more convenient to him was properly denied by the lower court.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident when the defendant rear-ended them. Evidently, a vehicle swerved into the plaintiff’s lane, requiring the plaintiff-driver to quickly apply the brakes. The defendant, who was traveling directly behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle at the time, failed to stop in time and ran into the back of the plaintiff’s car. The driver that swerved in front of the plaintiff’s car sped away and was never located.

August 22, 2018

Court Determines Employee’s Use of Company Car Was Permissive in Recent DUI Accident Case

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing an important issue that frequently arises in Maryland car accident cases. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether an employee who caused an accident injuring the plaintiff was a “permissive user” under his employer’s insurance policy. Finding that the employee was a permissive user, the insurance company will be required to satisfy the judgment against the employee.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident that occurred when the defendant rear-ended his vehicle while he was stopped at a red light. The defendant later admitted to having had a few drinks and being intoxicated. As it turns out, the defendant, who worked for a railroad company, was not from the area, and was there on business. The vehicle that the defendant was driving at the time of the accident was a company car.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, which resulted in a nearly $1.5 million verdict. However, after 30 days of not receiving payment, the plaintiff filed this case against the insurance company that wrote the policy for the railroad company that employed the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was covered under that policy and, therefore, the insurance company was on the hook for the $1.5 million verdict.

August 14, 2018

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Car Accident Claim Based on Failure to Comply with FTCA Requirements

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case involving a plaintiff’s allegations that she was injured when a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee negligently caused an accident while operating a USPS vehicle. The case is important for Maryland car accident victims because it required the court to determine if the plaintiff complied with the filing requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which may apply in certain Maryland car accident cases. Legal News Gavel

The Federal Tort Claims Act

Traditionally, the federal government was immune from lawsuits brought by citizens unless the government gave its consent to be named as a party. However, in 1946, Congress passed the FTCA, carving out certain exceptions to the general grant of governmental immunity.

In order to successfully bring a case under the FTCA, a plaintiff must comply with the procedural requirements contained therein. Relevant to this case were the filing requirements listed in 28 U.S.C. section 2401(b), which states that a plaintiff must file their case with the “appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues” or “within six months after the date . . . of notice of final denial of the claim.”

August 7, 2018

Court Finds that Car Dealership’s Insurance Policy Did Not Cover Customers on a Test-Drive

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an interesting opinion in a personal injury case raising an important issue that frequently arises in Maryland car accident cases. Specifically, the case considered whether motorists were covered under a third party’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Finding that the third party specifically rejected obtaining coverage for those other than the named individuals in the policy, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. Legal News Gavel

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs arranged to test-drive a car from a local car dealership. While they were out on the test-drive, another motorist rear-ended the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were injured as a result of the collision and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver who hit them.

That driver, however, did not have sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiffs for the injuries they sustained in the accident. Therefore, the plaintiffs then named the insurance company that wrote the policy for the car dealership as a party to the case, seeking to obtain coverage under that policy’s UIM coverage.

July 24, 2018

Court Discusses Application of Out-of-State Statute of Repose

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a product liability lawsuit discussing when, if ever, another state’s statute of repose applies. The case presents an interesting issue for Maryland product liability plaintiffs because although Maryland law does apply other state’s statutes of repose in some circumstances, courts will not do so if the case is brought by a Maryland resident.

The Facts of the Case

In 2012, the plaintiff’s Ford Escape caught fire while parked in her garage. The fire spread to her home, and she was injured as she attempted to flee the fire. The plaintiff filed a product liability case against Ford in federal court. The vehicle was manufactured in 2001 in Missouri, and first sold later that year. The plaintiff lived in Oregon.

Oregon’s statute of repose requires all cases to be brought by the later of:

Ten years from the time when the vehicle was manufactured, or
“The expiration of any statute of repose for an equivalent civil action in the state in which the product was manufactured.”

Missouri, the state where the vehicle was manufactured, did not have a statute of repose. Thus, there was a question as to what, if any, statute of repose applied to the plaintiff’s case.

July 17, 2018

Appellate Court Discusses Employer Liability in Recent Pedestrian Accident

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing when an employer can be held liable when an employee causes a serious car accident on the way to or from work. Ultimately, the court concluded that an employer may be held liable in situations where the employer requires an employee to use the car on the day of the accident. The case is important for Maryland car accident victims because it illustrates the types of arguments employers may make when one of their employees causes an accident.

Vicarious Liability

As a general rule, an employer is responsible for the negligent acts of an employee, if the act is during and within the scope of employment. The idea is that the employee is carrying out the business of the employer, so it is only fair to allow anyone injured as a result of the employee’s negligence to seek compensation not just from the employee, but also the employer.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was serious injured when he was struck by another car as a result of a collision caused by a county public defender (the “public defender”). While the county did not state that the public defender needed a have a car, practically speaking it was not possible for him to perform the functions of his job without a car. For example, the public defender had to attend various courthouses across the county, visit clients in prison, and investigate crime scenes.

July 10, 2018

Court Determines Insurance Company Was Not on the Hook for UIM Benefits in Recent Fatal Car Accident Case

by Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case requiring the court to interpret an insurance policy to determine if the policy provided uninsured motorist (UIM) protection to a man who was killed by an uninsured driver. Ultimately, the court concluded that the decedent’s employer’s insurance policy did not provide UIM coverage to the decedent and, thus, rejected the plaintiff’s claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in this case was the estate of a man who was killed when he was struck by a driver who was high on methamphetamine while he was riding his personal lawnmower. The at-fault driver was not insured.

The estate of the decedent filed a UIM claim under the decedent’s employer’s insurance policy, which contained coverage for UIM benefits. Specifically, that clause stated that UIM benefits under the policy extended to “you or others we protect.” The estate argued that the term “others we protect” included the decedent.