Mike v. Service Review, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1973
• Docket Number: No. 204,204
• Citation: 19 Md.App. 287,310 A.2d 585
• Parties: Helen W. MIKE v. SERVICE REVIEW, INC.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 287

19 Md.App. 287

310 A.2d 585

Helen W. MIKE v. SERVICE REVIEW, INC.

No. 204.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 31, 1973.

John T. Enoch, Baltimore with whom were Goodman, Meagher & Enoch, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellant.

Hamilton O'Dunne, Baltimore, with whom was Patrick A. O'Doherty, Catonsville, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before ORTH, C. J., and MORTON, THOMPSON and LOWE, JJ.

ORTH, Chief Judge.

Helen W. Mike (Mrs. Mike) filed an action in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), Retail Credit Company, Cooper-Holmes Bureau, Inc., and Service Review, Inc. (Service) claiming that she had been libeled. The suit was dismissed as to Retail Credit Company, and Cooper- Holmes Bureau, Inc. A demurrer by Allstate Insurance Company was sustained with leave to amend, and, upon failure to amend, a judgment absolute for costs was entered in its favor. Upon suggestion of Mrs. Mike the case was removed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County. The case was submitted to trial by jury. At the close of all the evidence Service moved for a directed verdict, and the motion was granted. Maryland Rule 552. Judgment was entered in favor of Service and against Mrs. Mike for costs. Mrs. Mike appealed.

The factual basis of the suit is not complicated. Mrs. Mike had placed herself in the 'good hands' of Allstate to insure her against liability with respect to the operation of her automobile, but there came a time when Allstate preferred not to have her as one of its insured. It notified her by letter dated 18 February 1969 that the policy of 11 January 1969 was cancelled as of 20 March 1969 and enclosed a premium refund in the amount of $22.50, from a total yearly premium of $94.00. The letter informed her of the cancellation of the policy in this language:

'All insurance companies have certain qualifying standards which, together with our judgment and experience, tell us whether we can provide insurance in each individual case. Cars and drivers that can be insured by one company might not meet the standards of another company.

In providing insurance protection many factors are considered-such as mileage, use of the car, where it's driven, the ages of the drivers, driving and accident record and other factors.

Sometimes, because of these standards, we must decide to give up business we might otherwise like to have. This happens only after thorough consideration of each individual case. We're sorry that we are unable to continue providing you with protection under the insurance policy listed above.'

There was a postscript:

'Upon written request of the Named Insured mailed or delivered to Allstate prior to the effective date of cancellation, Allstate will specify the reason or reasons for the cancellation.'

Mrs. Mike availed herself of the opportunity offered in the postscript and by letter of 28 February from Allstate's Underwriting Department the reasons were specified. They were succinctly put:

'As you may know, many insurance companies, under certain circumstances, conduct routine investigations to assist them in selecting and retaining an average group of policyholders. In your case, it is alleged that you are living in a common-law arrangement. For this reason, it was determined that we could no longer continue to offer you coverage under this policy.' ¹

The basis of the allegation of a 'common-law arrangement' was an 'Automobile Insurance Report' of an investigation made by Service on a printed form which was completed by check marks indicating 'yes' or 'no' answers to various questions and by terse comments. The information was sparse. It indicated Mrs. Mike was 51 years of age, employed by the Social Security Administration in a clerical position. Under the heading 'Specific Marital Status' the box 'Divorced' was checked. Under the heading 'Lives with', the designations 'Wife and Family', 'Parents', 'Relative', and 'Alone' were all unchecked, but there was written in 'Common Law'. In a space provided for amplification was written: 'The insured is living with a man appx her age. Sources advise that he is her boy friend.' Under a designation 'Recommended', 'No' was checked, and following was written, 'Morals'.

Mrs. Mike replied to the letter of 28 February:

'Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1969, with regard to the explanation you gave for cancelling my insurance. I can only say (politely) you have been misinformed and that I feel very sorry for the person or persons who saw fit to give such information. It only proves one thing to me, that we live in a very sick society. I can't imagine anyone stooping so low without positive proof. More baffling, is that your company would accept such information on hear say. Since there is more than just a cancellation of insurance involved here, like defamation of character, I ask that you endeavor to make another investigation as someone has made a grievous error.

True, I am separated, but if you knew the circumstances, which I consider my own personal business, I am sure you might have a little compassion and lean just a little towards me.

I am working very hard at two jobs trying to support myself and a 10-year old daughter. Up until two months ago I had an older daughter also living with me. Her leaving is the reason for purchasing the car. I also occasionally contribute to the support of my son.

Now if your term 'common-law arrangement' means what I think, I suggest you take another look at my birthday and draw your own conclusion. Also, I would like to know when I might find time for this behavior.

You can believe one thing, this isn't the end of this as I intend to find the evil-minded person or persons who have nothing else to do but pass judgment on someone else.'

As a result of Mrs. Mike's letter Service made a recheck and gave a summary of the reinvestigation in narrative form:

'Mrs. Mike has lived at 807 Edmondson Ave., Baltimore, Maryland for the past 1 1/2 years. The dwelling is a one and a half story cape cod type building, with two rooms upstairs. The house is owned by a Mr. James Gabin. Mrs. Mike has a young daughter living with her, approximately 10 years old. She did have an older daughter, approximately 25 years old, living with her until the first of this year. She has worked for the Social Security Administration for the time known at this address. She drives a 1960 Dodge. Mr. Gabin owns a later model Dodge, est., 1962 or 1963. The occupants of 807 Edmondson Ave. do not associate closely with any other residents of this community. According to neighbors, there are three residents of this house, Mrs. Mike, her daughter, and Mr. Gabin. Next door neighbors who seem to know the occupants of 807 Edmondson Ave. best, do not know Mrs. Mike by that name, and refer to her as Mrs. Gabin. She is described as being a woman approximately 5 4 tall, heavy set, with a round face, and wears her hair done up on the top of her head. She is seen outside the house only to hang out clothes, and to leave for work. No other woman is seen around this house. This dwelling is a one family type building, with one front and one rear entrance, and does not appear to be converted into a two family dwelling. As neighbors are not close to the occupants of 807 Edmondson, they do not know the exact marital status of the occupants, but assume them to be married or living with each other.

Prior to moving to 807 Edmondson Ave., 1 1/2 years ago, Mrs. Mike lived at 510 Valcour Ave., Baltimore, Md. for approximately 2 years. She was married to Herman Mike, a policeman for the city of Baltimore, and had 3 children at home. While living at 510 Valcour Ave., Mr. Herman Mike and Mrs. Helen Mike enjoyed a good standing and reputation in the community. They lived in a well kept middle income home, which was well furnished and maintained. They were not known to have had any marital problems, and the neighbors were surprised when Mrs. Mike left with the two daughters 1 1/2 years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Herman Mike are now legally separated and a divorce is pending. Mrs. Herman Mike was described as a woman approximately 5 4 tall, heavy set, round face, and wore her heir done up on the top of her head. The home at 510 Valcour Ave. is still occupied by Mr. Herman Mike and his son approximately 18 years of age. The home is still well maintained and furnished, and Mrs. Mike took only her clothing and personal effects when she left. Mr. Mike is still well respected in the community, and there is no criticism on him as a result of this separation. Mrs. Mike was a housewife until 2 years ago when she went to work for Social Security as a Clerk, which was approximately 6 months prior to her leaving 510 Valcour Ave. She did not own an auto at this time.

We have been unable to determine that Mrs. Mike works at any job other than than the Social Security Administration, nor that she contributes anything to the support of her son who lives with his father at 510 Valcour Ave.

During the course of this re-investigation, we have contacted Mr. Herman Mike, and he states that he and Helen Mike are legally separated, and a divorce is pending. He offers no reason for the separation, and that he was surprised by his wifes action in leaving him. He has never visited the 807 Edmondson Ave. address and does not know what type living arragement his wife and daughter have. He is not critical of his wife in any way, nor hostile towards her.

This investigation has covered all available sources at both addresses during the evening, weekend, and two days this week. We have exhausted all available leads to develop this situation further. As Mr. Gabin who owns the house at 807 Edmondson was believed unmarried prior to Mrs. Mike moving into this house, and the fact that no other woman is ever seen around this house, and that neighbors describe Mrs. Gabin the same as former neighbors describe Mrs. Mike, plus the fact that Mrs. Mike is separated and not...