Dinora Dominquez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 811, September Term 2020. Opinion by Beachley, J.
Maryland law requires
that you purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury liability
insurance that covers at least $30,000 in damages per person injured, with
a cap of $60,000 per accident. The Maryland Insurance
Article only refers to “uninsured” motorists and motor vehicles, “an uninsured
motorist or motor vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, the same as an
underinsured motorist or motor vehicle.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Shilling, 468 Md. 239, 248-49 (2020) (citing Connors v. Gov’t Emps. Ins.
Co., 442 Md. 466, 474 n.4 (2015)).
In March 2016, Dinora
Dominquez was a passenger in a vehicle being operated by her daughter at the
time that was rear ended by a vehicle that fled the scene before Ms. Dominquez
or her daughter could identify the driver. Ms. Dominguez sustained serious injuries
as a result of the collision and filed an uninsured motorist claim through her
daughter’s GEICO Insurance policy which provided uninsured motorist bodily
injury coverage limits of $30,000 per individual and $60,000 per occurrence.
Ms. Dominguez was also insured under a separate GEICO insurance policy, which
she purchased with her husband to cover their vehicle. Ms. Dominguez’s GEICO insurance
policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage limits
of $300,000 per individual and occurrence. Ms. Dominguez filed an uninsured
motorist claim with this policy as well.
At the time of the
collision, Ms. Dominguez and her daughter resided in the same household. GEICO
accepted Ms. Dominguez’s claim filed under her daughter’s policy but denied the
claim under her own GEICO policy, citing an exclusion within Ms. Dominguez’s GEICO
Policy that allowed the Insurer to deny the claim. The applicable
exclusion stated that GEICO’s uninsured motorist coverage did not apply: “[t]o
bodily injury sustained by an insured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by
an insured and not described in the Declarations and not covered by the Bodily
Injury and Property Damage liability coverages of this policy.” For purposes of
this case, the GEICO policy defines the word “Insured” to mean: “(a) You and
your spouse if a resident of the same household; (b) Your relative if a
resident of your household[.]” The GEICO policy defined “You” and “Your” to
mean “the policyholder named in the Declarations or his or her spouse if a
resident of the same household.” The GEICO Policy defined “Relative” as “a
person related to you who resides in your household.”
After
the denial of the uninsured motorist claim under her own GEICO policy, Ms. Dominquez
filed a breach of contract complaint against GEICO in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County. GEICO moved for summary judgment, asserting that as a matter
of law, the exclusion contained within Ms. Dominquez’s policy permitted the
denial of the claim. At the conclusion of a hearing on September 24, 2020, the Circuit
Court rejected Ms. Dominguez’s argument that the exclusion in her GEICO policy
was impermissibly broad and inconsistent with Maryland law contained in Md. Code,
Ins. § 19-509(f)(1). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of GEICO.
In examining the Circuit
Court’s ruling on appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the legislative
history surrounding Ins. § 19-509(f)(1), which permits an
insurer to exclude coverage when the insured occupies an uninsured vehicle
owned by an “immediate family member” who resides in the insured’s household. The
public policy in support of Ins. § 19-509(f)(1) is “to prevent a family, owning
several motor vehicles, from insuring only one or two of them with an insurer,
leaving the other vehicles uninsured, or underinsured under a different policy,
and being able to claim uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits from the
first insurer even though no premium was paid to the first insurer for coverage
of the other vehicles.” Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Comer, 419 Md. 89, 98,
18 A.3d 830 (2011).
Based upon that
examination, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that
Ms. Dominquez would not be able to recover under her own insurance policy for
an injury she sustained in an underinsured vehicle owned by an immediate family
member. In affirming the Circuit Court’s decision, the Court of Special Appeals noted
the prevailing Maryland law provides that when the contractual provision
of an insurance policy conflicts with a stated public policy, the policy
provision is invalid, but “only to the extent of the conflict between the
stated public policy and the contractual provision.” State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 307 Md. 631, 643 (1986) (citing Ins.
Comm’r v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 296 Md. 334, 340 n.6 (1983)).
-Towanda
Luckett, Associate Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment