Mundey v. Erie Insurance Group (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed January 16, 2007 -- Opinion by Judge Clayton Greene

Richard Mundey, Jr., age 21, was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by his friend, Amber Burgess. As a result of Amber's negligent operation of her automobile a collision occurred and Mundey suffered serious physical injuries which exceeded $20,000.00, the maximum amount of liability coverage on the vehicle in which he was a passenger. At the time of the collision, Mundey resided temporarily in the home of his grandmother and was not permitted to reside in the home of his parents. Mundey sought a declaration that he was covered under his parents' automobile liability insurance policy for payment of his damages pursuant to the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of that policy.

In affirming the decision in the Court of Special Appeals, the Court held that Mundey was not entitled to recover under his parents' uninsured motorist endorsement because, at the time of the collision, he was not a resident of their household or otherwise insured under the automobile liability policy in question. In addition, the Court held that consistent with Md. Code (1997, 2006 Repl. Vol.), §19-509 of the Insurance Article, Mundey was not a "clause 1 insured" under his parents' automobile liability policy at the time of the accident.

This opinion is available in PDF format.

Ohio Casualty v. Chamberlin (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed January 2, 2007--Opinion by Judge Robert Karwacki.

Ohio Casualty Insurance Company paid $20,000 to Sara Chamberlin, pursuant to Md. Insurance Code Art. §19-511, when Ohio Casualty (as the uninsured motorist carrier) rejected a $20,000 settlement offer from the defendant. After a jury awarded Chamberlin only $5,445 on her claim, Ohio Casualty moved to compel the return of the $20,000. The Court of Special Appeals held that, when a UIM carrier chooses to thwart a proposed settlement between a plaintiff and an alleged tortfeasor by substituting its payment of the settlement amount, it bears the risk that a jury might return a verdict in an amount less than the amount advanced or in favor of the defendant(s) and it is not entitled to a refund of any amount paid. The Court also rejected the argument by Ohio Casualty that language in Chamberlin's insurance policy required the money to be returned, finding such language vague and unenforceable.

The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.