 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.9/2/1997
Appellants, Sigridur Harris ("Mrs. Harris") and Robert Harris ("Mr. Harris"), brought suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to collect money allegedly owed to them under the terms of an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy issued by appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide"). Both sides moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Nationwide's motion and denying the Harrises' motion. Mr. and Mrs. Harris noted a timely appeal. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse.
ISSUES
Mr. and Mrs. Harris raise two issues, which we reorder and rephrase:
I. Did the circuit court err when it ruled that Sigridur Harris's injuries were not the result of an "accident," as that term is used in the applicable insurance policy?
II. Did the circuit court err when it ruled that Sigridur Harris's injuries did not arise out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle," as those terms are used in the applicable insurance policy?
FACTS
On November 7, 1993, Sigridur Harris was walking to her car in the parking lot of the Marlow Heights Shopping Center when an unidentified man in an unidentified car drove up beside her and grabbed a purse which was hanging from her shoulder. Mrs. Harris's arm became entangled in the purse's strap, and when the driver, who was still clutching the purse, accelerated, she was knocked to the ground and dragged about 15 feet before she was released. The driver sped away with her purse, and was never caught. Mrs. Harris, however, suffered severe injuries from the incident, including a broken shoulder and broken knuckles.
At the time of the incident, Mr. and Mrs. Harris owned an uninsured motorist policy issued by Nationwide. That policy provides, in relevant part:
YOU AND A RELATIVE
We will pay compensatory damages, including derivative claims, which are due by law to you or a relative from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury suffered by you or a relative, and because of property damage. Damages must result from an accident arising out of the:
1. ownership
2. maintenance; or
3. use of the uninsured motor vehicle.
Mr. and Mrs. Harris asked Nationwide to pay them benefits under the policy for Mrs. Harris's injuries, but Nationwide refused. Mr. and Mrs. Harris then brought suit against Nationwide for breach of contract.
At the conclusion of discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, the circuit court granted Nationwide's motion and denied the Harrises' motion; according to the court, Mrs. Harris's injuries did not arise out of the "ownership, maintenance, or use of uninsured motor vehicle," and were not the result of an "accident," as those terms are used in the applicable policy.
ARGUMENT(S)
Before we address the issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. Harris, we must make several introductory points about the interpretation of insurance policies in general, and of uninsured motorist policies in particular.
The General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating insurance. Accordingly, all insurance policies issued in Maryland must be interpreted in light of the pronouncements of the legislature.
This is particularly true in the interpretation of uninsured motorist policies. The legislature has mandated that insurers provide a minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage to their insureds, and insurers are strictly prohibited from contracting around the mandatory minimum.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|