Contributory Negligence Remains Cornerstone of Maryland Insurance Litigation

            For over 175 years, the State of Maryland and its judiciary have staunchly maintained their stance in favor of the doctrine of contributory negligence – but is now the time for Maryland to make a change? Over this past summer, the Appellate Court of Maryland grappled with this exact question, and one case in particular is attempting to lead the charge.

            The Appellate Court’s September 15, 2025 decision in Goldman v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company reinforces the continued viability of Maryland’s contributory negligence doctrine and offers important guidance for insurers operating in the state. Furthermore, when considered alongside the General Assembly’s decision not to advance House Bill 594 during the 2025 legislative session, the ruling provides welcome clarity and finality on fault allocation and liability exposure in motor vehicle claims.

            In August of 2022, Daniel Goldman, a motorcyclist riding through Montgomery County, Maryland, became involved in a severe motor vehicle accident when he was forced to lay-flat his motorcycle to avoid another vehicle, which had abruptly, and without using their turn signal, come to a stop in order to turn. The driver of the phantom vehicle was never identified. Goldman filed a claim with his insurer Progressive for uninsured motorist benefits. Goldman was denied coverage and filed suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for breach of contract. Although the jury found the unknown motorist negligent, it also determined that Goldman bore some responsibility for the accident and, under Maryland’s contributory negligence rule, that finding was dispositive. Contributory negligence holds that any degree of fault attributed to a claimant bars recovery. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the insurer, and the Appellate Court affirmed, finding that Goldman was somewhat negligent in causing the accident.

            On appeal, Goldman urged the court to apply a comparative negligence standard, which would have permitted recovery reduced by the claimant’s share of fault. The Appellate Court declined, reiterating that Maryland courts lack authority to depart from contributory negligence absent action by the legislature or the Supreme Court of Maryland.

            The timing of Goldman is particularly significant given the fate of House Bill 594. That proposal would have introduced a limited comparative negligence standard for motor vehicle accidents involving so-called “vulnerable individuals,” including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. Had it been enacted, HB 594 would have materially altered claims evaluation and litigation strategy in an impactful subset of auto claims. Instead, however, the bill failed to advance before the end of the 2025 session, preserving the existing contributory fault framework.

            For insurers, the combined effect of Goldman and the defeat of HB 594 signals legislative and judicial reluctance to alter Maryland’s long-standing approach to negligence. This continuity promotes predictability in underwriting and claims handling, particularly in jurisdictions such as Maryland, where even incremental tort reform has generated uncertainty and increased litigation. Insurers may continue to assess liability based on established contributory negligence principles without the need to account for proportional fault calculations or partial recoveries.

            At the same time, these developments warrant ongoing monitoring. Advocacy efforts to modify contributory negligence – especially through targeted reforms rather than wholesale change – are likely to continue. Motor vehicle cases involving vulnerable road users remain a focal point for reform proponents, and future legislative sessions may revisit similar proposals. For now, however, Goldman affirms a key defensive tool for insurers in Maryland. Until meaningful legislative or high-court action occurs, contributory negligence remains a cornerstone of Maryland insurance litigation, offering clarity and consistency in an otherwise evolving liability landscape.

- Vincent Bedessem, Law Clerk