Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gartelman, No. 102

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: DAVIDSON
• Citation: 18 A.L.R.4th 623,416 A.2d 734,288 Md. 151
• Decision Date: 07 July 1980
• Docket Number: No. 102
• Parties: , 18 A.L.R.4th 623 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Doris M. GARTELMAN et al.

Page 151

288 Md. 151 416 A.2d 734, 18 A.L.R.4th 623 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
Doris M. GARTELMAN et al. No. 102. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 7, 1980.

[416 A.2d 735]

Page 152

M. Natalie McSherry, Baltimore (Louis G. Close, Jr., and Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Lee Gordon, Baltimore (Gordon & Goodman, P. A., Baltimore, on the brief), for Doris M. Gartelman.

Ronald

Page 153

H. Jarashow, Annapolis (William A. Franch and Goldsborough, Franch & Collett, Annapolis, on the brief), for Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund.

Argued before SMITH, DIGGES, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This case concerns the interrelationship between Maryland insurance law and certain exclusions from coverage provided by motor vehicle liability policies.

The facts of this case are undisputed. One of the appellees, Doris M. Gartelman (claimant), was an insured motorist under a policy issued to her husband by the appellant, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (insurer). On 13 July 1977, the claimant, while operating an uninsured moped ¹ owned by her husband, was injured when she was forced off the road by an unidentified truck. The claimant sought benefits from the insurer under the insurance policy's personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured motorist (UM) provisions. The insurer refused to pay because of exclusions contained in the policy.

On 21 February 1978, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the claimant filed a petition for a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that she was entitled to coverage under the policy, or, in the alternative, under the Act governing the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). Md. Code (1957, 1979 Repl.Vol.), Art. 48A, §§ 243A-N. The trial court granted the claimant's and MAIF's motions for summary judgment, declared that the claimant was entitled to coverage under both the PIP and UM provisions of the policy, and entered judgment in favor of the claimant and MAIF. The insurer appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. v. Gartelman, 43 Md.App. 413, 405 A.2d 779 (1979). We granted a writ of certiorari. We too shall affirm.

Page 154

I

Personal Injury Protection Coverage

This case initially presents the question whether, under Art. 48A, § 539 and § 545, a [416 A.2d 736] motor vehicle liability policy may exclude from PIP coverage an insured who is injured while occupying an uninsured motor vehicle owned by a named insured.

In Maryland, there is an established legislative policy designed to make certain that those who own and operate motor vehicles in this State are financially responsible. Art. 48A, §§ 243A-N; §§ 538-547; Md. Code (1977 & 1979 Cum.Supp.), § 17-101 § 17-107 of the Transportation Article. This legislative policy has the overall remedial purpose of protecting the public by assuring that operators and owners of motor vehicles are financially able to pay compensation for damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents. See Rentals Unlimited, Inc. v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 286 Md. 104, 110, 405 A.2d 744, 748-49 (1979); Keystone Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hinds, 180 Md. 676, 679, 26 A.2d 761, 762 (1942). To effectuate this legislative policy, the owner of a motor vehicle registered in Maryland is required to provide security, usually in the form of a vehicle liability insurance policy. §§ 17-103, 17-104 of the Transportation Article. Every such insurance policy must provide PIP coverage. Art. 48A, § 539. The primary purpose of this requirement is to assure financial compensation to victims of motor vehicle accidents without regard to the fault of a named insured or other persons entitled to PIP benefits. § 540. ²

Section 539 provides in pertinent part:

"No policy of motor vehicle liability insurance shall be issued, sold or delivered . . . unless the policy also

Page 155

affords the minimum medical, hospital and disability benefits set forth herein . . . . The benefits, or their equivalent, shall cover the named insured and members of his family residing in his household . . . ."

Section 545 expressly provides for certain exclusions from this requirement. It states:

"The coverages prescribed under § 539 of this article may exclude from benefits thereunder any person otherwise insured under the policy who:

(a) Intentionally causes the accident resulting in the injury, or

(b) Is injured while operating or voluntarily riding in a vehicle known by him to be stolen, or

(c) Is injured while in the commission of a felony or while in violation of § 21-904 of the Transportation Article.

(d) With respect to motorcycles, economic loss benefits required under § 539 may be excluded, or may be offered with deductibles, options or with specific exclusions."

Here the policy under which the claimant was insured provided the required PIP coverage. However, with respect to exclusions, it provided in pertinent part:

"This insurance does not apply

(c) to bodily injury sustained by the named insured or any relative while occupying . . . any motor vehicle owned by the named insured . . . which is not an insured motor vehicle."

The insurer contends that the insurance policy's exclusion of an insured injured while occupying an uninsured motor vehicle owned by a named insured is nothing more than a "narrowing (of) the insurer's liability in a manner not inconsistent with statutory requirements." It asserts that there is "no statutory bar or evidence of intent to preclude

Page 156

such an exclusion." The insurer concludes that its exclusion does not conflict with the statutory requirements and is valid.

The claimant contends that the exclusion is invalid. She points out that although the statute provides for certain exclusions, it does not provide for excluding an insured occupying an uninsured motor vehicle owned by a named insured. Accordingly, she concludes that the policy does not provide the coverage required by § 539.

[416 A.2d 737] The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the actual intent of the Legislature. Department of State Planning v. Mayor of Hagerstown, --- Md. ---, ---, 415 A.2d 296, 299 (1980). Where a statute expressly provides for certain exclusions, others should not be inserted. Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 546, 380 A.2d 49, 54 (1977); State Ins. Comm'r v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 241 Md. 108, 117, 215 A.2d 749, 754-55 (1966). Any provision of an automobile liability insurance policy which conflicts with the requirements of the statute regulating such policies is invalid. Peninsula Ins. Co....