Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund v. Stith

• Decision Date: 04 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 144,144
• Citation: 277 Md. 595,356 A.2d 272
• Parties: MARYLAND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FUND v. Claude Mason STITH.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 595

277 Md. 595

356 A.2d 272

MARYLAND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FUND v. Claude Mason STITH.

No. 144.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 4, 1976.

C. Russell Fields (Robert L. Simmons, Baltimore, and John J. Corbley, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellant.

Paul R. Rochlin, Baltimore (David B. Purdum and Rocklin & Settleman, P.A., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

On December 19, 1972, Claude Stith, A Baltimore City police officer, was involved in an accident while driving a departmental vehicle on official business; an unidentified motor vehicle suddenly entered his lane of traffic, causing him to swerve and strike another vehicle.

Although eligible for workmen's compensation benefits, Stith elected to forego filing a claim against the Department; instead, he sought recovery against the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF) which, on July 16, 1974, offered to settle the case for '2,100.00 gross and minus available Workmen's Compensation Deduction, leaving a net figure of $1,696.00 net.' Stith declined the offer, sued MAIF, and recovered a judgment against it for $36,000.00. Stith thereafter filed a petition for payment of the judgment in the amount of $14,596.00, representing the $15,000.00 maximum recovery then allowable under Maryland Code (1970 Repl.Vol.) Article 66 1/2, § 7-615(a) ¹ less a $404.00 workmen's compensation deduction. In his petition for payment, Stith asserted that he was not entitled 'to recover benefits under any Workmen's Compensation law for the injuries for which damages were awarded as part of such judgment, saving and excepting the amount agreed upon with . . . (MAIF) of . . . $404.00.' MAIF sought dismissal of the petition; it urged that since Stith was eligible for workmen's compensation benefits, the amount which he would have received had he filed such a claim was required to be deducted from the judgment recovered against MAIF by reason of the provisions of § 7-615(b) (6), viz.:

'(b) Deductions.-There shall be deducted from the applicable maximum amount set forth in subsection (a) of this section or from the amount of the judgment, whichever is smaller, the total of the following:' '(6) All amounts that the applicant has received, or, in the opinion of the court, is likely to receive, by reason of the accident out of which applicant's claim arises, under or because of any workmen's compensation law. Medical, hospital, funeral, or other benefits paid or payable on behelf of the applicant under the law shall be deemed, for the purposes of this subtitle, to be received or receivable by the applicant.'

The court (Murphy, James W., J.) granted Stith's petition for payment. It concluded that since Stith was barred by limitations from recovering workmen's compensation benefits, he was not 'likely to receive' any such benefits in the sense contemplated by § 7-615(b)(6); that the subsection 'was intended to bar a claimant from a double recovery arising out of an accident'; and that '(t)o engage in a speculative determination as to what he might have received by way of Workmen's Compensation benefits so as to deduct that amount from the maximum payable by the Fund would not only eliminate the remote possibility of double recovery, but may effectively prevent any recovery at all.' MAIF appealed and we granted certiorari prior to argument in the Court of Special Appeals.

MAIF argues on appeal that under the clear language of § 7-615(b)(6) 'vested workmen's compensation benefits are not necessary in order for a deduction to be allowed . . . (because) the legislature intended to allow a deduction for Workmen's...