 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Revis v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund5/9/1991
On January 11, 1988, Jerry R. Revis, while a pedestrian, was struck by an uninsured motorist. At that time he was the named insured in a motor vehicle liability policy covering his personal automobile issued by the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). That policy provided him with $2,500 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits and uninsured motorist (UM) coverage of $25,000. Thereafter, Revis's employer paid $11,061.71 in workers' compensation for the injuries and disabilities Revis suffered in the accident. We granted certiorari to resolve the dispute which subsequently arose between Revis and MAIF as to the extent of the PIP and UM benefits due Revis.
At the time of the accident Maryland Code (1957, 1986 Repl.Vol.) Article 48A required MAIF to provide PIP and UM coverages in the motor vehicle liability policy insuring Revis in the following pertinent particulars:
Section 539(a)
No policy of motor vehicle liability insurance shall be issued, sold or delivered in this state . . . unless the policy also affords the minimum medical, hospital and disability benefits set forth herein . . . . The benefits, or their equivalent, shall cover the named insured . . . injured in any motor vehicle accident (including an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle . . .)
Section 541(c)(2)
In addition to any other coverage required by this subtitle, every policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued, sold, or delivered in this State . . . shall contain coverage . . . for damages which the insured is entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained in an
accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such uninsured motor vehicle . . . .
Section 543(d)
Benefits payable under the coverages required in §§ 539 and 541 of this article shall be reduced to the extent that the recipient has recovered benefits under workmen's compensation laws of any state or federal government.
Revis made claims under his PIP and UM coverages. MAIF settled the UM claim for policy limits, i.e., $25,000, but in accordance with § 543(d), it reduced its agreed settlement by the amount Revis had recovered in workers' compensation , $11,061.71. Thereafter, MAIF rejected Revis's PIP claim in its entirety, contending that § 543(d) barred this $2,500 claim since Revis had recovered workers' compensation in excess of that amount.
Revis brought suit in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City, to recover his unpaid PIP claim from MAIF. The District Court found in his favor, but on appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, that judgment was reversed. We granted Revis's petition for certiorari.
In construing § 543(d) under the factual predicate presented by the instant case, we apply well-settled rules of statutory construction. Our ultimate aim is to effect the legislative intent. To accomplish this the words of the statute are to be given their ordinary and natural import. NCR Corp. v. Comptroller, 313 Md. 118, 124, 544 A.2d 764, 767 (1988), since the language of the statute is the primary source for determining the legislative intent. State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 421, 348 A.2d 275, 278 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 942, 96 S.Ct. 1680, 48 L.Ed.2d 185 (1976). Nevertheless, the language of the statute must be considered with reference to the purpose, aim or policy of the legislature reflected in that statute. Moreover, a statute must be construed in the context of the statutory scheme i
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.
|
|