De Macedo v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford
| Decision Date | 11 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 52, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Citation | 480 Md. 200,280 A.3d 679 |
| Parties | Pedro Steven BUARQUE DE MACEDO, et al. v. The AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Martin H. Freeman (Mark A. Freeman, Freeman & Freeman, P.C., Rockville, MD), on brief, for Petitioners.
Argued by Steven M. Klepper (Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Amicus Curiae Maryland Association for Justice, Inc., Thomas W. Farrington, Esquire, 4204 Ambler Drive, Kensington, MD 20895.
Argued before: Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Eaves, Sally D. Adkins (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Joseph M. Getty (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This case arises from a tragic automobile accident. In February 2016, Michael Buarque de Macedo, his spouse Alessandra Buarque de Macedo, and one of their children, Thomas Buarque de Macedo, died in a two-car collision in Montgomery County, Maryland. Their remaining child, Helena Buarque de Macedo,1 survived the crash but suffered permanent injuries. Because the family members have the same surname, we may at times refer to these and other members of the extended Macedo family by their first names. In doing so, we mean no disrespect.
Michael was driving one of the family vehicles when the accident occurred. He and Alessandra were the named insureds of a primary automobile liability insurance policy issued by The Travelers Indemnity Company ("TIC"). Michael alone was also the named insured of a personal liability umbrella policy issued by The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut ("AIC"), the Respondent here. The umbrella policy contained a household exclusion provision that purported to preclude coverage for bodily injury or personal injury suffered by Michael or by individuals who were related to Michael and who resided in Michael's household.
The Petitioners before us are Helena, individually, and Steven Macedo, in his capacity as Helena's guardian and the Personal Representative of the Estates of Thomas and Alessandra. Steven and Helena (collectively, "the Macedos") filed a civil action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County asserting negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship claims against Michael's Estate and the State of Maryland (Counts I-VII). Count VIII of the Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the provisions in Michael's umbrella policy that purport to exclude claims brought against the named insured by members of the same household are void as against public policy and contrary to statute, to the extent the exclusion would otherwise apply to claims brought on behalf of Thomas's Estate and Helena. After a hearing on the Macedos' and Travelers' cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court declared the household exclusion valid and enforceable.
The circuit court entered a final judgment as to Count VIII and ordered Counts I-VII stayed until the coverage dispute in Count VIII is resolved on appeal.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, and the Macedos sought further review in this Court. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
On February 27, 2016, at approximately 6:55 p.m., Michael, Alessandra, and their two children, Thomas (18) and Helena (15), were involved in a devastating automobile accident while on their way to Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, to drop Helena off at a school play. Michael was driving one of the family cars, a Chevrolet Volt. A BMW sedan traveling at a very high rate of speed collided with the Volt as Michael attempted to make a left turn. Only Helena survived. She was transported from the scene to the hospital where she underwent numerous emergency life-saving procedures. Helena sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result of the accident.
At the time of the accident, Michael and Alessandra were the named insureds of an automobile liability policy issued by TIC. Under this primary policy, the limit of liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage was $500,000 per accident. Additionally, Michael was the named insured of a "Personal Liability Umbrella Policy of Security" issued by AIC. TIC and AIC are both Travelers Property Casualty Companies. From this point forward, for the sake of simplicity, we will refer to both companies, individually and collectively, as "Travelers."
Under the umbrella policy, the limit of liability coverage was $2,000,000 per occurrence, as long as a primary automobile policy with limits of $500,000 per occurrence was in force. The umbrella policy also contained a household exclusion provision, stating that the policy did not apply to "bodily injury or personal injury to any person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to an insured and who is a resident of the household of that person; or bodily injury or personal injury to [the insured]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Following the accident, Steven Macedo was named Helena's guardian and the Personal Representative of Alessandra's and Thomas's Estates. On October 12, 2016, counsel for Steven Macedo and Helena wrote to Travelers and demanded $500,000 under the primary policy and $2,000,000 under the umbrella policy to settle the Macedos' various survivorship, personal injury, and wrongful death claims.
In response to the Macedos' demand, Travelers acknowledged its obligation to pay $500,000 under the primary auto policy. However, Travelers asserted that the household exclusion applied under the umbrella policy: "Since Michael is the Named Insured and ‘insured’ under the Umbrella Policy and Alessandra, Thomas, and Helena were related by blood or marriage ... and were residents of Michael's household, the household exclusion applies to preclude coverage for any and all claims made by Alessandra, Thomas, and/or Helena against Michael."
The Macedos and Travelers entered into a settlement agreement on June 16, 2017, under which Travelers agreed to pay the $500,000 policy limit under the primary auto policy. The Macedos reserved their rights to make a claim under the umbrella policy.
On February 13, 2019, the Macedos filed a civil action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Counts I-VII of the complaint asserted negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship claims against Michael's Estate and the State of Maryland.
Count VIII of the complaint sought a declaratory judgment against Travelers that the household exclusion in the umbrella policy was void as against public policy and contrary to statute to the extent it would otherwise apply to claims brought by the Macedos against Michael.
The Macedos and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to Count VIII of the Complaint. The Macedos contended that the plain language of Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP") § 5-806(b) renders void a household exclusion in an umbrella policy, up to the limits of the motor vehicle coverage of the umbrella policy, as to personal injury and wrongful death claims made by unemancipated children or the estates of unemancipated children against their parents.
Section 5-806(b) provides:
The right of action by a parent or the estate of a parent against a child of the parent, or by a child or the estate of a child against a parent of the child, for wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, as defined in Title 11 of the Transportation Article, may not be restricted by the doctrine of parent-child immunity or by any insurance policy provisions, up to the limits of motor vehicle liability coverage or uninsured motor vehicle coverage.
Following a hearing on August 2, 2019, the circuit court denied the Macedos' motion for summary judgment, declared the household exclusion in the umbrella policy "valid and enforceable," and therefore granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment. By Order entered October 1, 2019, the circuit court granted the Macedos' consent motion for an order directing the entry of final judgment on Count VIII and staying Counts I-VII "until the coverage dispute set forth in Count VIII is resolved in Maryland's appellate courts[.]"
On appeal, the Macedos renewed their argument that the plain language of CJP § 5-806 renders void a household exclusion in an umbrella policy, up to the limits of the motor vehicle coverage of the umbrella policy, with respect to personal injury and wrongful death claims made by unemancipated children or the estates of unemancipated children against their parents.
The intermediate appellate court disagreed with the Macedos' interpretation of CJP § 5-806(b). The court opined that the statute Macedo v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut , No. 1619, Sept. Term 2019, 2021 WL 4453477, at *11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sept. 29, 2021).
The Macedos filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, seeking review of the following question: "Does [CJP] § 5-806 render the household exclusion clause in an umbrella policy void, up to the limits of motor vehicle liability coverage, as to motor vehicle personal injury or wrongful death claims of unemancipated children or estates of such children against their parent?" On January 11, 2022, we granted the petition. Macedo v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut , 477 Md. 148, 266 A.3d 990 (2022).
"The question of whether a trial court's grant of summary judgment was proper is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal." Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co ., 468 Md. 92, 102,...
To continue reading
Request your trial