 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Foley8/20/2002
specific type of coverage can validly be excluded. Defendants argue State Farm's endorsement does not exclude Mrs. Foley's bodily injury claim because it was brought under part of the policy which does not specifically exclude such a claim for "bodily injury." After examining Section 240C-1(a)(1), we believe the word "specifically" modifies the phrase "exclude all coverages." Thus, the endorsement validly excludes all coverage, including coverage for bodily injury, if the endorsement "specifically exclude all coverage" for the named excluded driver. See Md. Stat. Ann. ยง 240C-1(a)(1) (emphasis added); Wilkerson v. Michael, 104 Md. App. 730, 657 A.2d 818, cert. denied, 340 Md. 216, 665 A.2d 1058 (1995); and Miller. We discern nothing in Section 240C-1(a)(1) which required State Farm to specifically state "bodily injury" was excluded from coverage in order for State Farm to validly deny that type of coverage under the endorsement. Section 2 of the State Farm endorsement states that "under all other coverages we shall not be liable and no liability or obligation of any kind shall attach to us for loss or damage while any motor vehicle is operated by David Foley, Jr." We hold this language was sufficient to exclude defendant David Foley, Jr., from coverage (including coverage for bodily injury), and relieved State Farm from any duty to defend or indemnify him in the underlying lawsuit.
We note that "Maryland does not follow the rule, adopted in some states, that an insurance policy is to be construed most strongly against the insurer." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scherr, 101 Md. App. 690, 695, 647 A.2d 1297, 1300 (1994), cert. denied, 337 Md. 214, 652 A.2d 670 (1995). Under Maryland law, an insurance contract and its endorsements must be construed under general principles of contract law. Id. Paragraph 1 of the endorsement eliminates coverage for "bodily injury " under coverages P, U, and S of the State Farm policy. Paragraph 2 of the endorsement is a catch-all provision and completely eliminates State Farm's liability under all other coverages contained in the policy (except for coverages P, U, and S). Reading Paragraphs 1 and 2 together leads us to the conclusion that State Farm is not liable for Mrs. Foley's bodily injury claim.
Defendants contend the absence of the words "bodily injury " from Paragraph 2 means coverage for bodily injury must still be available. However, we are not persuaded by this argument. We conclude the catch-all provision is unambiguous and operates toexclude liability under all coverages contained in the State Farm policy, except for coverages P, U, and S. Since Mrs. Foley's bodily injury claim was not brought under coverages P, U, or S, State Farm is not liable for her claim.
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them meritless. After a careful review of the record and the arguments of the parties, the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm is
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and BIGGS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|