 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Webster v. Government Employees Insurance Co.12/2/1999
This case is a civil appeal that followed the tragic murder of Catherine Elizabeth Webster by William D. Stewart during an attempted carjacking of an uninsured vehicle. Appellants, Webster's parents, brought suit against Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), appellee, under their car insurance policy's uninsured motorist provision. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County granted summary judgment to GEICO. We affirm.
On the evening of March 20, 1995, Robert Beauchamp Saunders and Larry LaPrad, Jr. talked Webster, who was 16 years old, into going to a pool hall without her parents' knowledge or permission. Saunders was driving his uninsured 1988 Nissan 300 ZX automobile. LaPrad sat in the front passenger seat and Webster sat in the rear of the car. When they arrived at the pool hall, they discovered it was closed. While still in the car in the parking lot, the carjacker, Stewart, ordered them out of the vehicle and showed them a handgun tucked in the waistband of his trousers. Saunders accelerated in an attempt to escape while Stewart fired his gun. One bullet only grazed Saunders, but two bullets hit Webster in the back of the head. She died the following day.
Stewart has been found guilty of carjacking, first degree murder, and other charges and received a sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty years. Webster's parents sued Saunders and LaPrad for negligence in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The court dismissed the case, finding that the defendants had no legal duty to protect the decedent from a third party's criminal actions. Webster's parents did not appeal from that decision.
Webster's parents then sued their own insurance company, GEICO, when it refused to compensate them under its uninsured motorist provision. After the circuit court granted summary judgment to GEICO, the parents noted this appeal and contend that the lower court erred because appellee's motion for summary judgment did not address all aspects of appellants' Complaint. Specifically, appellants contend that two issues were not addressed in the summary judgment motion and, therefore, the entire case should not have been dismissed. First, appellants alleged that GEICO's uninsured motorist provision was void because it provides less coverage than Maryland law requires. Second, appellants argue that appellee's motion addressed only Saunders's involvement in Webster's death, without considering Stewart's wrongful acts. They argue that the uninsured motorist provision applies because of the wrongful actions of both Stewart and Saunders, not just Saunders alone.
Regarding the first issue, appellants contend that GEICO inserted the phrase, "legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or driver of an insured vehicle," to provide less coverage than required by Maryland law. Specifically, appellants state that the applicable Maryland statute includes compensation to innocent victims of automobile mishaps as well as for wrongful death claims. Appellants claim that GEICO's insurance policy does not indicate coverage for either.
We agree with appellants that an insurer may not provide less than the statutorily required minimum coverage. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 Md. 131, 135, 550 A.2d 69 (1988); Harris v. Nationwide, 117 Md. App. 1, 5, 699 A.2d 447 (1997). Here, however, GEICO's insurance policy mirrors that of the applicable statute almost identically. GEICO's policy states:
We will pay damages for bodily injury and property damage caused by accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle arising out of the o
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|