 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Claibourne v. Willis11/13/1997
Opinion by Bell, J.
This appeal arises from a most unusual set of circumstances. The appellant, Desirea Claibourne (Claibourne), and the appellee, Richard A. Willis (Willis), were involved in an automobile accident, which occurred at the intersection of Erdman and Mannesota Avenues in Baltimore City and in which Claibourne was injured. When the accident occurred, Claibourne was insured by the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF) and, as was determined subsequently, Willis was uninsured. Claibourne retained counsel, Harvey A. Kirk (Kirk) of Saiontz & Kirk, P.A., to represent her in connection with the accident.
Having learned of Willis's insurance status, Claibourne made an uninsured motorist claim with her insurance carrier. She also filed suit against Willis in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Claibourne and MAIF settled her personal injury claim, and Claibourne entered into an Uninsured Motorist Release and Agreement, in which she agreed to discharge MAIF from all claims arising out of the February 1993 accident. She also agreed, in that release and agreement, "to take, through any representative designated by MAIF, such action as may be necessary or appropriate to recover the damages suffered by the undersigned . . . from any person or persons, organization, association or corporation other than MAIF who or which may be legally liable therefor." Although, as evidenced by the space on the form for that purpose, the Uninsured Motorist Release and Agreement contemplated that MAIF note its acceptance on the form, MAIF never did so. Indeed, the form was never sent to MAIF.
Instead of sending the form to MAIF, Kirk, Claibourne's attorney, forwarded the Uninsured Motorist Release and Agreement, as executed by Claibourne, to Willis's attorney, Richard Seiden (Seiden) of the Law Offices of Lawrence M. Stahl, P.A. Moreover, he asked Seiden to see that "the proper Notice of Dismissal is filed with the court and all outstanding court costs have been paid." As requested, Seiden prepared an "Order of Dismissal" (the Order), which he sent to Kirk for execution. The Order provided as follows:
Mr. Clerk:
Please mark the file DISMISSED with prejudice with all open Court costs to be paid by the Defendant RICHARD A. WILLIS.
The Order contained signature lines for both Kirk and Seiden. Furthermore, it clearly reflected that Seiden represented Willis. Complying with Seiden's request, Kirk signed the Order and returned it to Seiden for filing with the circuit court. Seiden signed the Order, filed it, and paid all outstanding court costs. Consistent with the Order, the clerk noted on the docket, "Dismissed With Prejudice. Dismissal FD."
Subsequently, Claibourne received a letter from MAIF advising her that its right to proceed against Willis had been prejudiced by her dismissal with prejudice of her lawsuit against him. Noting the subrogation clause in Claibourne's MAIF insurance policy, it
explained:
A Dismissal with prejudice eliminates all possibility of a further claim by you and, therefore, to any rights M.A.I.F.
would have become subrogated to.
Thus, because MAIF was no longer able to be subrogated to Claibourne's rights against Willis, it made a demand on Claibourne for return of the amount it paid her in settlement.
Kirk wrote to Seiden, informing him of the MAIF letter and demand. He asked that Seiden "notify within five days as to what arrangements you have made on behalf of your client to compensate MAIF for these subrogation rights." In that letter, Kirk also raised the possibility of "asking the court to strike the Order of Dismissal based
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.
|
|