 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.11/27/1996
Opinion by Fischer, J.
Filed: November 27, 1996
Fraeda Lewis (Mrs. Lewis) appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's (State Farm) decision to add a premium surcharge to Mrs. Lewis's automobile insurance policy was justified and proper. Following the Maryland Insurance Administration's (MIA) finding that State Farm's surcharge decision was proper, Mrs. Lewis requested a hearing before the State Insurance Commissioner of Maryland (the Commissioner), which assigned the hearing to an ALJ of the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ found that State Farm's actions were justified and accordingly dismissed Mrs. Lewis's protest. Lewis then appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Mrs. Lewis raises the following issue for our review, which we have reworded and condensed as follows:
I.
Did the circuit court err by affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge?
FACTS
On November 13, 1993, Mr. Lewis was driving Mrs. Lewis's 1988 Mercedes automobile. Mrs. Lewis and Fred and Joan Cohen were passengers in the car. While in Baltimore City, Mr. Lewis lost control of the car and skidded into a guard rail. At the time of the accident, the road was still wet from a rainstorm that had occurred earlier in the day. No one in the car sustained injuries, but the accident caused substantial damage to the car itself.
Following the accident, Mrs. Lewis filed a claim with State Farm, her insurance company, under her collision coverage. State Farm investigated the claim, determined that Mrs. Lewis's policy covered the accident, and paid $1,577.66 for repairs to the car.
Subsequent to its payment to Mrs. Lewis, State Farm decided to impose a surcharge on Mrs. Lewis's policy based on its belief that Mr. Lewis was more than fifty percent at fault in causing the accident. State Farm then notified Mrs. Lewis of its plans to add the surcharge. Mrs. Lewis requested that the MIA investigate State Farm's decision. The MIA did so and eventually confirmed that decision as proper and justified.
After the MIA's decision, Mrs. Lewis requested a hearing with the Commissioner. On November 3, 1994, a hearing was held before an ALJ, which found that:
The Licensee's [State Farm's] proposed surcharge is in accordance with MD. ANN, CODE art. 48A, ยง 240AA. It gave adequate notice to the Complainant [Mrs. Lewis] of its intention to surcharge her policy according to the terms of its established rating plan on file with the Maryland Insurance Administration. Furthermore, it used adequate and reasonable means to investigate the accident, determine liability under collision coverage and pay the resulting claim. Where there is a single-car accident, the provision that the driver must be 50% at fault does not apply. The Administrative Law Judge finds that the Licensee's actions to surcharge Fraeda J. Lewis's policy is lawful.
Mrs. Lewis appealed this decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the ALJ. Following the circuit court's order, Mrs. Lewis filed a timely appeal with this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In this case, the circuit court's revisory power over the ALJ's findings of fact and mixed questions of fact and law was limited to whether substantial evidence existed in the record to support the ALJ's decision. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty v. Insurance Comm'r, 302 Md. 248, 266, 487 A.2d 271 (1985). The Court of Appeals has described the substantial evidence standard as whether "a reasoning mind reasonably could have re
Page 1 2 3 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|