Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog

The Baltimore Sun is covering personal injury wrongful death accident trials. Super. Here is how the article begins: "A $100 million civil trial opened Thursday with attorneys contending that Baltimore police officers purposely drove erratically while transporting a suspect, leading to the man's death."

The writer is telling the readers $100 million for a reason. It lets us know...absolutely nothing. It is beyond impossible for the plaintiff to actually receive this amount of money, given the cap we have in Maryland which may limit the verdict to less than 1% of the recovery (depending on the amount of economic damages and whether there was pain and suffering before death). Even with the best possible "the tragic victim's family and next door neighbors all sat on the jury" outcome.

Using $100 million just serves to confuse readers who think there really is the potential for jackpot justice of this magnitude in every case.

Maryland law - specifically Insurance Code Section 19-513 - prohibits the stacking of insurance policies. Accordingly, under Maryland law, if there is uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, the insurer is liable to its insured for the full amount of the accident victim's damages minus the amount paid by the liability carrier or the Defendant.

In other words, let's say you have a Maryland accident case where the defendant has a $100,000 liability policy and the injury victim has a $300,000 uninsured/underinsured motorist policy. If the $100,000 is paid by the liability carrier, the uninsured/underinsured motorist obligation is $200,000, not $300,000. So if the liability policy is lower than the UM/UIM limits, you are going to be capped in your recovery for the uninsured/underinsured motorist claim by the amount of the policy.

Lawyers in other jurisdictions - Pennsylvania leaps to mind - are shocked at how conservative Maryland accident law is on stacking insurance policies and lots of other issues related to the handling of car accident claims. We are a blue state with very red accident laws.

I'm going to post today the type of blog post I hate most: "There was an accident today on...." But this one is different because of the scope of the tragedy. CNN reports that ten people were killed in a single truck accident in Kentucky.

The truck apparently went across the median on Interstate 65 in Hart County and hit an 18 passenger van, reportedly a family of Menonites traveling to a wedding in Iowa.

Just an unbelievable tragedy that underscores in a meaningful way the risks we take when we get on the road with these big rig trucks. This case is a single tragedy but, statistically speaking, more than 11 people will die in other truck accidents today.

As a society, we have implicitly decided to allow these deaths by letting these big rig trucks operate on the road much the same way we do. Every other country in the world has also agreed to this tradeoff and, maybe, in the big economic picture, ease of delivery of goods actually saves lives. Who knows? But I do know that we should be tirelessly looking at ways to make our roads safer and to limit the number of truck accident deaths we have each year in this country. Because 5,300 people is just too many.

What insurance company in Maryland is most likely to take their car accident cases to trial? I have never asked myself that specific question but, I started thinking about it after reading the most recent Metro Verdicts Monthly (Volume 22, Issue 3). From reading this issue with that question in mind and just reflecting unscientifically on the cases we have tried over the last year, I think the answer clearly is State Farm.

For whatever reason, I think State Farm has less concern about taking a bad faith verdict than other insurance companies. I have no idea why. But it also seems that at least with respect to its own insureds, who are defendants, State Farm will stand behind them by paying an excess verdict. As I understand it, keeping in mind that this is all based on hearsay and second and third hand reports, State Farm sends a "good neighbor letter" to its insured letting them know that if there is a verdict in excess of the State Farm policy limits, State Farm will pay the claim.

Why is State Farm willing to try so many cases in Maryland? I think it is a clear message to Maryland accident lawyers that if they do not take State Farm's often pitiful offer, they had better be prepared for trial. Does this tough guy tactic work? I think in many cases it does. The reality is that many Maryland car accident lawyers are not prepared to go to trial. So even if State Farm loses on most cases that go to trial - as I believe they do - the overall message to other accident lawyers may well make it a loss worth taking for them.

Particularly in this economy, there is temptation for many real estate, criminal and domestic lawyers to dabble in accident lawsuits, particularly if it is a serious accident. But there is a reason why our firm does not dabble in areas of the law that are not related to personal injury cases. And it is not 1985 anymore, insurance companies are not giving away anything without a fight. So if you sign up to handle a Maryland accident claim, you had better be ready to handle the case through trial.

Our practice is largely based on referrals from other lawyers. Our firm looks to establish relationships with other lawyers that refer serious injury cases (accident, malpractice and product liability) to our firm with co-counsel fees consistent with Maryland Rule 1.5(e). If you have a case you don't feel you have the experience and/or resources to handle and want to co-counsel with a law firm that has tried hundreds of personal injury cases, call me at 800-553-8082 or email me to run your case by us.

In Darby v. Marley Cooling, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered the question of whether an employee that prevailed before the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission may file an "intent to participate" in a Circuit Court appeal and raise objection to the rest of the Commission's decision or whether the employee is required to file a cross appeal.

This does not sound like a particularly serious workplace accident case although the Plaintiff was struck on the head by a 24' by 12" by 6" aluminum board used as a temporary work surface, which was dropped by a co-worker. He did not have significant head injuries and returned to work on the day of the accident. Plaintiff had tenderness at the C2 through C7 vertebra. Plaintiff took a trapezius bilateral test that was positive for pain, and x-rays showed a straightening and loss of the anterior cervical lordosis (a finding that is often insignificant).

Plaintiff prevailed before the Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission and the employer appealed to the Baltimore County Circuit Court.

The Court found that Maryland Rule 7-203(b) requires a cross-appeal from Plaintiff for a portion of any administrative agency decision aggrieving a cross-appellant. The fact that Maryland workers' compensation claims are de novo does not confer interest on the injured worker requiring continuation of proceedings in order to permit challenge to portions of orders by which injured workers were not aggrieved.

You can read the full opinion here.