Hicks v. Hatem

Decision Date06 April 1972
Docket NumberNo. 269,269
Citation289 A.2d 325,265 Md. 260
PartiesGeorgia I. Bishop HICKS v. Thomas J. HATEM, Receiver for The National Guild Insurance Company.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

William B. Evans, Elkton, for appellant.

C. M. Zacharski, Jr., Baltimore, for appellee.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

FINAN, Judge.

This appeal requires us once again to construe the 'household exclusion' clause in an automobile liability insurance policy. The policy in question was issued by The National Guild Insurance Company (Company) to Mr. Charles A. Swanson (the insured), and contained the following familiar exceptions to its coverage:

'* * * This policy does not apply: * * * (b) to bodily injury to (1) the spouse or any parent, son, or daughter of the insured or (2) the named insured, or (3) any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.' (Emphasis Supplied).

Thomas J. Hatem, appellee, as the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Maryland and the appointed receiver of the Company, and Mrs. Georgia I. Bishop, appellant, submitted by way of a request for a declaratory judgment (Code, 1971 Repl. Vol., Art. 31A) the question of whether Mrs. Bishop was eligible for coverage under the policy to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (DuFour, J.) upon the following stipulated statement of facts:

'Charles A. Swanson, RD #5, Elkton, Maryland was insured under National Guild Insurance Company policy No. ACM 29751 an automobile liability policy. On July 5, 1965, while the policy was in effect, Swanson was driving a 1950 Willys station wagon, the insured vehicle. With him as a passenger was one Georgia I. Bishop. The auto driven by Swanson went out of control and struck a bridge abutment. Mrs. Bishop suffered injuries to her right hip and right knee for which she has filed a liquidation claim in the amount of $30,000.

'Georgia Bishop and Charles Swanson had been occupying the same household on Dogwood Road, RD #5, Elkton, Maryland, uninterruptedly for a number of years prior to the accident. They were not married to each other. About nine years before the accident Mrs. Bishop's nephew began living in the same household. Mrs. Bishop was regularly employed. Mr. Swanson was intermittently employed. All three ate together. Mrs. Bishop and Mrs. Swanson lived as man and wife.'

The lower court, in arriving at the conclusion that the 'household exclusion' clause barred a recovery under the policy by the appellant, stated:

'* * * this court finds that irrespective of the absence of consanguinal ties, Georgia Bishop was indeed a member of the family of the insured residing in his household. Their living together ostensibly as man and wife under one head for a period of time exceeding nine years was conducive to cozy and collusive claims; the very object and purpose of the exclusionary provision.

'This court finds that the phrase of the policy here involved is not ambiguous in the sense that its general meaning is uncertain or that it can be construed in allternate ways. That a term cannot be precisely defined so as to make clear its application in all varying factual situations does not mean that it is ambiguous. Allstate v. Humphrey, 246 Md. 492, 496 (229 A.2d 70). Absent such a finding, the provisions cannot be construed most strongly against the insurer. Maryland has not adopted the rule followed in many jurisdictions that an insurance policy is to be most strongly construed against the insurer. Allstate v. Humphrey, supra, page 497 (229 A.2d 70).'

The issue presented on appeal is the interpretation to be given to the word 'family' as used in the 'household exclusion' clause, and, more specifically, whether or not Mrs. Bishop should be considered a 'member of the family' of the insured. The appellant suggests that the word 'family' connotes a blood relationship, and perhaps a marital relationship, existing among individuals, while the appellee would define the term as 'a sociological entity consisting of persons habitually residing under one roof, forming one domestic circle and having a permanent domestic character.' For the purposes of this case, we are not inclined to adopt either definition verbatim. However, for the reasons to be stated we hold that Mrs. Bishop was not a 'member of the family' of the insured.

We initiate the discussion of the question presented with the observation that this Court has long recognized that the word 'family' has a variety of meanings, depending on the manner in which it is employed. See Krug v. Mills, 159 Md. 670, 673, 152 A. 493 (1930); and Pearre v. Smith, 110 Md. 531, 534, 73 A. 141 (1909). Additionally, Judge McWilliams, speaking for the Court in Peninsula Insurance Company v. Knight, 254 Md. 461, 255 A.2d 55 (1969), stated as a general rule for the construction of contracts:

"In the construction of contracts, even more than in the construction of statutes, words which are used in common, daily, nontechnical speech, should, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent, be given the meaning which they have for laymen in such daily usage, rather than a restrictive meaning which they may have acquired in legal usage. * * *" 254 Md. at 472-473, 255 A.2d at 61.

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged 1966 ed.) defines 'family' as:

'1. Parents and their children, whether dwelling together or not. 2. the children of one person or one couple collectively. 3. the spouse and children of one person. 4. any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts and cousins. 5. all those persons considered as descendants of a common progenitor. * * *.'

It is not until we come upon the seventh meaning attributed to the word 'family' that the interpretation urged by the appellee appears:

'* * * 7. a group of persons who form a household under one head, including parents, children, servants, etc. * * *'

An excerpt from Webster's Third International Dictionary (Unabridged 1961 ed.) discloses a similar definition of 'family':

'* * * 2a: a group of persons of common ancestry. b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock. 3a: a group of individuals living under one roof....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 27, 2012
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1986
    ... ... Most of them dealt with construction and application of the exclusion; its validity was not questioned. See, e.g., Hicks v. Hatem, 265 Md. 260, 289 A.2d 325 (1972); Parker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 263 Md. 206, 282 A.2d 503 (1971); State Farm Mut. Auto ... ...
  • Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1982
    ...proximity to one another. "Family," however, connotes a proximity of relationship apart from cohabitation. (See Hicks v. Hatem (1972) 265 Md. 260, 289 A.2d 325, 328.) [640 P.2d 770] or not;  in a wider sense, the unity formed ......
  • Ramsey v. D. P. A. Associates
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 1972
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT