Lord v. Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund
Decision Date | 29 December 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 327,327 |
Citation | 381 A.2d 23,38 Md.App. 374 |
Parties | Steven A. LORD v. MARYLAND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FUND. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Daniel E. Schultz and Melinda Gray Murray, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Ransom J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom was Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before MENCHINE, MOORE and LISS, JJ.
Steven A. Lord (Lord), a non-resident of Maryland, incurred medical and hospitalization expenses in the amount of approximately $18,000 as a result of an automobile accident in Louisville, Kentucky that occurred while he was driving an insured's automobile with her consent. The owner of the vehicle was the named insured under a policy of insurance issued by Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF).
Lord sought payment of benefits from MAIF claiming entitlement by reason of Maryland Code Article 48A, § 539 that reads in pertinent part as follows:
MAIF denied Lord's claim upon the ground that it was excluded by the following provision of the insurance contract:
Lord instituted suit against MAIF in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. In due course Lord's motion for summary judgment was denied. Thereafter, even though MAIF had not filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, the trial court rendered summary judgment for it pursuant to Maryland Rule 610 d. 1.
The respective positions of Lord and MAIF are thus succinctly stated in their briefs:
It is quite plain that any provision of an automobile liability insurance policy that is in conflict with the requirements of a statute is illegal and ineffective. Casualty Co. v. Hinds, 180 Md. 676, 679, 26 A.2d 761, 762 (1942); Peninsula Insurance v. Houser, 248 Md. 714, 721, 238 A.2d 95, 99 (1968).
It is equally plain that policy provisions narrowing the insurer's liability in a manner not inconsistent with statutory requirements is valid and permissible. Amalgamated Ins. v. Helms, 239 Md. 529, 539, 212 A.2d 311, 318 (1965); Malisfski v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 135 F.2d 910, 914 (4th Cir. 1943).
In Malisfski, supra, the Court rejected a contention that provisions of the prior Maryland financial responsibility law nullified an exclusion exception to an omnibus coverage clause of an insurance contract.
In Couch on Insurance 2d § 37:803 (1961), it is said:
" § 37:803. Provisions relating to place or area of use.
Insurers commonly restrict the coverage of policies on vehicles to use within a specified area, either requiring that all use be within that area or more commonly that the regular or frequent use be within that area. Such restrictions as to area of use are not conditions.
Territorial use limitations are valid."
There is no statute imposing more extensive coverage requirements for policies issued by MAIF than those imposed by law upon private insurance carriers. Indeed, a reading of the coverage statutes makes plain that the requirements for both are identical.
The statute imposing policy requirements upon private insurance carriers is codified as Md.Transp.Code Ann. § 17-103 and reads as follows:
" § 17-103.
(a) Required form. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the form of security required under this subtitle is a vehicle liability insurance policy written by an insurer authorized to write these policies in this State.
(2) The Administration may accept another form of security in place of a vehicle liability insurance policy if it finds that the other form of security adequately provides the benefits required by subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Required minimum benefits. The security...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Laundry Machinery Industries v. Horan
... ... No. 757 ... Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ... March 5, 1980 ... [412 A.2d 409] ... 1978), applying Ohio law; Auto Specialties Mfg. Company v. Boutwell, 335 So.2d 291 ... ...
-
Schaefer v. Miller, 112
... ... 112 Sept. Term 1989 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... March 26, 1991 ... Motion for Reconsideration ... damages that 'run wild.' " Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 1043, 113 ... ...
-
Parsons v. Erie Ins. Group
...721, 238 A.2d 95 (1968); Keystone Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hinds, 180 Md. 676, 679, 26 A.2d 761 (1942); Lord v. Maryland Automobile Ins. Fund, 38 Md.App. 374, 377, 381 A.2d 23 (1977). Erie's contention that it may extend coverage to the risks it chooses is, therefore, not entirely The endorse......
-
Finci v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
...insurer's liability in a manner not inconsistent with statutory requirements is valid and permissible." Lord v. Maryland Auto Insurance Fund, 38 Md.App. 374, 377, 381 A.2d 23 (1977) (held that limitations under an automobile insurance policy were not inconsistent with statutory requirements......