 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bushey v. Northern Assurance Co. of America2/3/2000
overage Form " or a covered `auto' licensed or principally garaged in, or `garage operations' conducted in Maryland." Finally, it is clear the insurance was for business purposes. Under the "Driver Information" section of the Garage and Dealers Section, the insurance application states, "List all drivers, including family members that will drive company vehicles, and employees who drive own vehicles on company business." Only Mr. Bushey and two of his employees are listed.
Furthermore, appellants had the option to purchase insurance coverage that covered vehicles not owned by the automotive repair business, but opted not to purchase it. As the Court of Appeals stated: The fundamental problem with the Petitioners' arguments is that they are asking this Court to declare that they are entitled to something they did not elect to purchase.... nsureds are only entitled to the coverage that they pay for, and no more.... The Petitioners had the option of purchasing higher uninsured/underinsured limits of coverage for each vehicle by paying the associated higher premiums. They chose not to do this for two of the three vehicles insured under the same policy, and now they seek the benefits of a bargain they did not make.
Kendall v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 348 Md. 157, 172, 174, 702 A.2d 767 (1997).
In a similar case, Schuler v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., 81 Md. App. 499, 504, 568 A.2d 873 (1990), this court considered whether the injured party, the spouse of the owner of a car insured by the owner's employer, was an insured under the commercial insurance policy at issue for purposes of UM and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The insurance company argued that only covered vehicles involved in accidents were insured under the policy, whereas the injured party argued that the owners of the cars and their spouses and relatives were covered despite the fact that the employer paid for the insurance. Id. at 502. A plain reading of the parties' insurance policy led this Court to conclude that the injured spouse was not an insured under the policy. Id. at 508. However, this Court also rejected the insurance company's argument that only covered vehicles were insured because the language of the policy did not so limit the coverage. Id. at 506-07.
In contrast to Schuler, the clear language of the policy at issue limits UM coverage to covered autos. The parties clearly understood they were contracting only for covered autos. We therefore reject appellants' argument that the policy's language does not restrict coverage only to vehicles used in the context of the Busheys' garage operations.
II. The Uninsured Motorist Endorsement
Appellants contend the definitions of an insured in the UM endorsement extends coverage to family members even when not in covered autos. The UM endorsement defines an insured as:
B. WHO IS AN INSURED
1. You.
2. If you are an individual, any "family member".
3. Anyone else "occupying" a covered "auto" or 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".
(Emphasis added). Appellants interpret this definition of an insured to mean that Miranda was an insured and covered under the policy regardless of what vehicle she was traveling in because there is no language in the first two definitions that specifically limits coverage to accidents in covered vehicles. Appellees contend that a plain reading of the UM endorsement and the policy as a whole shows that Miranda is not an insured at all and that UM/UIM coverage is limited only to covered auto
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.
|
|