In
Linda Connors, Individually, et al v. Government Employees Insurance Company, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the
circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEICO, holding that GEICO
insurance policy’s “clear and unambiguous language” restricts GEICO’s
underinsured motorist policy obligation to appellants collectively at $100,000.00.
The intermediate appellate court arrived at the $100,000.00 figure by offsetting GEICO’s “per occurrence” limit
of $300,000.00 by the $200,000.00 previously paid to appellants through the tortfeasor’s
insurance policy.
On
April 14, 2009, spouses Linda and Robert Connors were walking in a residential
area when the tortfeasor backed out of a driveway and hit them with his car. Mrs.
Connors suffered minor injuries, while Mr. Connors unfortunately passed away
from his injuries during the pendency of litigation. The tortfeasor’s insurance
company readily paid out its full applicable policy limits of $100,000.00 per
person/$300,000.00 per occurrence, paying $200,000.00 total for the incident.
Mr.
and Mrs. Connors were both “insureds” under a motor vehicle policy issued by
GEICO, which provided uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with policy
limits of $300,000.00 per person/$300,000.00 per occurrence. Following their settlement with the
tortfeasor’s insurance company, the Connors filed a claim with GEICO seeking additional
recovery. Rather than seek the remaining $100,000.00 available to them
(subtracting the $200,000.00 they received from the tortfeasor from their
$300,000.00 per occurrence GEICO underinsured motorist policy as GEICO did when
it tendered payment of $100,000.00 to them), they sought the full amount of
$300,000.00. To arrive at that number, the appellants argued that the “per
occurrence” language capping their recovery at $300,000.00 was subservient to
the “per person” limit of $300,000.00 and that the offset calculations should begin
in the amount of $600,000.00. The appellants then argued that GEICO should
receive credit for the $200,000.00 from the tortfeasor’s liability policy, leaving
$400,000.00, and only then should the $300,000.00 “per occurrence” limit come
into play, thus permitting them to a total recovery from GEICO of $300,000.00
As
expected, GEICO argued that its underinsured motorist policy language is “clear
and unambiguous,” and that the “per occurrence” limit applies to claims of two
or more people, and is to be reduced by all amounts paid by the tortfeasor, in
aggregate.
After
a brief recitation of underinsured motorist law in Maryland, the Court of
Special Appeals went above and beyond what was necessary to defeat appellants’ nonsensical
argument. Analysing both contract construction and Maryland’s longstanding “gap
theory” on underinsured motorist coverage, the Court affirmed the circuit
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEICO, holding that “the clear
and unambiguous language of the GEICO insurance policy leaves GEICO with a
remaining obligation to appellants of $100,000.00,” which had been satisfied in
appellants previous settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance company.
No comments:
Post a Comment