 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bushey v. Northern Assurance Co. of America2/3/2000
a temporary substitute for a covered "auto"....
4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of "bodily injury " sustained by another "insured".
The standard of review on appeal of a trial court's granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is whether the trial court was legally correct. Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 120 Md. App. 216, 221, 706 A.2d 650 (1998). We find that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to Northern.
I. Maryland's Uninsured Motorist Statute
Appellants' first argument is that Maryland's UM statute does not permit an insured to be excluded from coverage if the insured is not in a "covered vehicle." Appellants contend that the statute applies to Northern's policy, even though it is a commercial insurance policy. Therefore, appellants argue the trial court erred in concluding that UM/UIM benefits cover only vehicles owned by Bushey Automotive or vehicles used in the business with transportation tags.
Appellee contends UM/UIM coverage under the policy extends only to owned vehicles subject to Maryland compulsory uninsured motorists law, i.e. the three vehicles listed in the policy, and vehicles used in the business with transportation tags. Appellee argues the insurance policy should be interpreted according to the parties' intentions at the time of contracting and that Mr. Bushey had the opportunity to purchase UM/UIM coverage for vehicles not owned by the business or otherwise used in the business, but he declined.
Appellants correctly state that the primary purpose of Maryland's UM statute, Insurance Article §19-509, is to compensate innocent victims of automobile accidents who are unable to recover from uninsured or underinsured motorists. Md. Code Ann., Ins. §19-509(1997); Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gartelman, 288 Md. 151, 157, 416 A.2d 734 (1980); Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 120 Md. App. 216, 222, 706 A.2d 650 (1998). Appellants also correctly state that the statute lists two specific exclusions and the Court of Appeals has consistently held that additional exclusions are not permitted. West Am. Ins. Co. v. Popa et al., 352 Md. 455, 474-75, 723 A.2d 1 (1998)(citing ten decisions by the Maryland Court of Appeals). However, appellants rely on cases that deal with personal, rather than commercial, insurance policies. Under appellants' contentions, the garage policy at issue would expose Northern to UM/UIM liability for all of Mr. Bushey's family members in any automobile accident, a result that would ignore the intention of the parties as well as the clear language of the policy.
The primary purpose in construing an insurance contract is to effectuate the intention of the parties. Schuler v. Erie Ins. Exch. et al., 81 Md. App. 499, 505, 568 A.2d 873 (1990). "Where there is no ambiguity in an insurance contract the court has no alternative but to enforce the policy's terms." Kendall v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 348 Md. 157, 171, 702 A.2d 767 (1997) (citing Howell v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 305 Md. 435, 443, 505 A.2d 109 (1986)).
In this case, the parties' clear intention was to contract for a garage policy that insured covered autos only. We can see that from several unambiguous terms in the contract. First, in the "Coverages/Limits" section of the Garage and Dealers Section, appellant clearly understood that only those vehicles that were checked were covered for underinsured motorist coverage because not only did he check number 26 (owned autos subject to UM law), but he wrote in number 32 (company use). Second, the UM endorsement emphasizes that UM coverage exists only for covered autos by explicitly stating that it modifies the Garage C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|