Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog

Back in the old days from 1972 to 1989, insurance companies had to provide PIP insurance with Maryland car insurance policies that provided some measure of coverage for lost wages and medical bills after a car accident regardless of fault. Then the car insurance companies wore down the Maryland legislature and PIP was no longer a requirement. The grand compromise was that car insurance companies would "offer" PIP but that the insured could waive PIP coverage.

Please note, I'm making all of this up. I was in college at the time and I'm sure even people who were there don't remember exactly how it happened. But I will bet you it happened just like that.

Anyway, to waive PIP in Maryland, the waiver must be both affirmative and written (although electronic signatures count as "written" in 2010). So a Maryland car insurance company must have a waiver to deny coverage after a car accident. If it has the waiver, it wins. If it does not, it loses.

Here is what is tricky. There is no indication as to whether the waiver applies to car insurance policies that automatically renew every year. On one hand, a renewal is just a continuation of the old policy. On the other hand, the insurance company is required to get a PIP waiver when it "sells" the insurance. Arguably, it is "selling" insurance each time it issues a new policy. Does the existing PIP waiver carry over with each automatic renewal or do you have to sign a new waiver for each renewal period?

You would think this would be a well-settled area of Maryland law since this has been the law for 21 years. The problem is that Maryland accident lawyers rarely file PIP claims because most lawyers process PIP claims at no charge and the amount at issue does not warrant the long trip to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a 5-2 decision this morning in a workers' compensation case, WalMart v. Holmes.

The Plaintiff in this case sought to collect permanent partial disability benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of his wife, who died of causes unrelated to her work injury. Plaintiff testified he needed their combined income with his wife's disability benefits in order to meet their living expenses. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission found that Mr. Holmes did not present evidence to show that his decedent wife had “a legal obligation to support” him at the time of her death and, accordingly, her claim for permanent partial benefits did not transfer to him.

The issue in this case involved claims where the surviving spouse seeks permanent disability benefits according to the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act. The court, in an opinion by Judge Greene, found that the surviving spouse must either show dependency or evidence of a legal obligation of support that was owed to the surviving spouse by the decedent.

Judge Adkins and Chief Judge Bell disagree, arguing that the court is looking through the wrong analytical looking glass. Instead of focusing on a spouse’s duty to provide support, the majority hones in on the surviving spouse’s right to receive support. Accordingly, the majority ignores Maryland law's authority to enforce spousal support by criminalizing the willful failure to provide support. Under the dissent's view, the claim should go to the trier of fact and that, if uncontroverted, Plaintiff's testimony that he needed the disability payments should be enough.

You can read the full opinion here.

"Hey, I got a call today on a great bus accident case." Honestly, accident attorneys don't say this too often. The vast majority of intakes in bus accident cases are not meaningful claims worth pursuing. If you throw in the phrase "client fell getting off the bus", the chances of that claim being a case are about the same as Brett Favre winning the husband of the year award.

But there is a reason why smart lawyers listen to the whole story. A California jury awarded a man $6.4 million in a lawsuit stemming from brain injuries he suffered getting off of a bus. The man, tragically already a quadriplegic, was dropped while getting off the bus, causing a severe brain injury. Under California's comparative negligence, the city will pay 17 percent of the damages and the bus company will pick up the balance. In Maryland, both would be jointly and severally liable because they are both proximate causes.

Every Maryland accident lawyer enounters difficulty in dealing with Medicare liens. The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog has a post on a new 11th Circuit opinion that, while not a panacea for accident lawyers dealing with Medicare liens, underscores that, "Super Lien" or not, Medicare does have to follow at least some of the same rules as any other lienholder.

Allstate does not like plaintiffs seeking compensation for their injuries. Unless, of course, Allstate is the plaintiff seeking compensation for its injuries. Accordingly, Allstate has filed suit against Toyota for compensation for payments it has made for accident and injury claims caused by the now infamous unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles.

Do I blame Allstate for filing a lawsuit when it thinks it has a claim? Of course not. In fact, the claim is ironically very creative. But I think Allstate has a world view that we need less creative lawsuits... unless it has one to bring.

One underutilized tool for Maryland truck accident lawyers: Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. While FOIA does protect certain records from disclosure in truck accident cases, you can often get inspection reports, compliance reviews, and other information that defendants either do not have or do not produce in discovery.