 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bushey v. Northern Assurance Co. of America2/3/2000
s.
We agree with the trial court in its reading of the UM endorsement that the commercial insurance policy insured Bushey Automotive, which is a business entity, not an individual. Therefore, the second definition does not apply and family members are not insured under this commercial policy. See Jensen v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 524 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)(holding daughter was not insured under commercial insurance policy because the named insured was a business, not an individual).
Furthermore, as described above, the policy as a whole embraces covered autos only. In fact, even the UM endorsement states that it modifies the policy for covered autos only. The first sentence of the UM endorsement states, "For a covered `auto' licensed or principally garaged in, or `garage operations' conducted in Maryland, this endorsement modifies insurance provided under the [garage coverage form]."
Appellants primarily rely on Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 120 Md. App. 216, 706 A.2d 650 (1998), for the proposition that the proper analysis in determining UM coverage begins and ends with the question of who is an insured, not whether an insured was in a covered auto. In Young, because the policy at issue had no limiting language regarding covered autos, this Court held that the insured was covered. Id. at 224. However, in this case, we find that the policy has limiting language that explicitly states that UM/UIM coverage applies only to covered autos. Thus, we conclude that Miranda was not an insured.
We note that there is a dispute regarding whether Miranda met the definition of "family member" because she stayed with her grandparents during the week and may not be considered "a resident of your household." However, this factual dispute is not material to the outcome of the case.
III. Parent-child Immunity
The circuit court concluded the doctrine of parent/child immunity barred appellants' individual wrongful death claims. Northern argued below that under the underinsured motorist provision, the appellants have to be legally entitled to recovery. Therefore, the parents would have to sue their daughter, Susan, and prove she was negligent, which is barred by parent/child immunity.
Appellants argue that there is no authority in Maryland saying a parent cannot sue a child. We disagree. The Court of Appeals has applied the parent-child doctrine to preclude claims by a minor child against the parent as well as claims by a parent against the minor child. See Schneider v. Schneider, 160 Md. 18, 152 A. 498 (1930)(mother could not sue her minor child for injuries sustained in an automobile accident in which she was a passenger and the child was the driver); Latz v. Latz a/k/a Shafer, 10 Md. App. 720, 272 A.2d 435, cert. denied, 261 Md. 726 (1971)(father may not sue his minor child individually or as administrator of his wife's estate where mother was killed while a passenger in an automobile accident in which her minor daughter was the driver). In Schneider, the Court of Appeals explained why a parent may not sue the minor child:
The obstacle to the mother's recovery...is in the fact that she sues a minor son, of whom she, jointly with the father, is the natural guardian.... The ordinary position of parent and guardian of a minor, and that of plaintiff seeking to recover from the minor, are positions which cannot both be occupied by one person at one and the same time.... [A minor is] dependent upon a parent to provide for him ... judgment and care.... In a suit against him he would ordinarily depend upon his parents to procure him an attorney, for he cannot appoint one.... ne person cannot at the same time occupy the positio
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.
|
|