 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Perry12/8/1999
; and (5) making conforming changes to other sections.
The purpose and meaning of § 19-513(c)(2) is well-explained in the public legislative history of the 1989 law. A person injured in an automobile accident could be eligible for PIP benefits from two or more sources - the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and, if the person had his or her own insurance on another vehicle, from the insurer of that vehicle as well. See § 19-505(a)(1)(i). The law always precluded collecting from both insurers (§ 19-513(b)) and required, where coverage was available from both sources, that the benefits be paid by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. See § 19- 513(c)(1). In allowing insureds to waive PIP benefits under their own policies, however, the Legislature determined that a waiver of PIP benefits was a total waiver, and that, if an insured waived such benefits under his/her own policy, the insured could not collect those benefits from any other insurer. That purpose is stated expressly in the Floor Report of the House Economic Matters Committee:
"A waiver of the coverage would constitute a waiver of all PIP benefits provided under the first named insured's policy and any other motor vehicle liability policy issued in Maryland. In other words, once PIP is waived, the persons to whom the waiver applies cannot go against the PIP coverage of another driver who has not waived merely because the first person waived under their own policy."
The Floor Report goes on to explain that the waiver of PIP coverage "is for the no-fault remedy itself" and not merely the waiver under a specific policy:
"In other words, a person who has waived the add-on no-fault benefit for himself and his family under his own policy should not be able to recover PIP benefits merely because he happens to be a passenger in an automobile for which PIP coverage has not been waived."
That explanation puts the purpose of the new language now appearing as § 19-513(c)(2) in clear focus. It was not to disqualify a person from PIP benefits merely because the person owns an uninsured vehicle that was not involved in the accident, as MAIF contends, but to disqualify only those persons who had deliberately waived PIP coverage under their own policy, in accordance with § 19-506. Perry, of course, is not subject to that disqualification; he is seeking to collect PIP benefits from his own insurer and did not waive his right to do so.
JUDGMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AFFIRMED; PETITIONER TO PAY THE COSTS.
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.
|
|