Maryland Courts

March 24, 2009

Maryland Auto Accident Cases: A New “Amount in Controversy” Law Passes the Maryland Senate

Maryland Senate Bill 468 passed today in the Maryland Senate. It increases – from $10,000 to $20,000 – the maximum amount in controversy in a civil action in which a party may not demand a jury trial. Defendants would only be able to “bump up” cases between $20,000 and $30,000 from District Court to Circuit Court.

Any case pled in District Court for more than $10,000 can be bumped up to a jury trial. This practice, which is mostly done by insurance companies in personal injury car accident cases, leads to massive numbers of car accident cases before Maryland juries in cases that should be streamlined into District Court trials.

In fact, auto insurance companies are the problem in getting this bill passed; small businesses, for example, did not oppose this bill. Why are auto insurance companies opposed to this bill? It saves them legal costs to be sure. Is it because insurance companies get better results in front of juries than judges? No. The motive is much more nefarious: they want personal injury lawyers to spend time and resources in accident cases if the lawyers and their clients refuse the insurance companies’ below market settlement offers in smaller cases.

February 11, 2009

Circuit Court Removal by Insurance Companies in Maryland Car Accident Cases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

There is a battle now in the Maryland state legislature about whether Maryland should increase the minimum jurisdictional amount before a defendant can remove a case from District Court to Circuit Court. Defense lawyers for State Farm and Allstate, the two largest auto insurance providers in Maryland, routinely “bump up” District Court claims to Circuit Court if the amount in controversy is more than $10,000.

So what happens is we have an enormous volume of cases where insurance defense lawyers in Maryland are seeking jury trials in cases that do not belong in Circuit Court. Why? Do they think a jury will give them a more fair trial? Ironically, for the jury-hating insurance companies who continue to argue that juries are out of control, trust in juries is at least one reason insurance companies seek jury trials in Maryland auto accident cases (at least in some Maryland counties where juries are more conservative).

But the primary reason insurance companies seek jury trials in smaller auto accident cases in Maryland is because it tortures Maryland auto accident lawyers. The insurance companies do this, not motivated by spite—well not primarily anyway, but because it is a good global tactic. A significant number of auto accident lawyers in Maryland are reticent to sue. The threat of getting a small case going through the Circuit Court ringer is even more daunting to many Maryland injury lawyers. I’m not saying it should be. But it is for those seeking the path of least resistance.

June 19, 2008

Challenge to Maryland’s Cap on Non-Economic Damages

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record reports today that The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos intends to file an appeal in a Baltimore City medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiff’s $10.2 million jury verdict against University of Maryland Medical Center was capped at $632,500.00 because that is the limit on non-economic damages.

The Daily Record reports that the Plaintiff’s counsel intends to argue that: (1) the limitation on damages has not accomplished its purported legislative aim of reducing medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors; (2) the Maryland cap on non-economic damages is pre-empted by the ADA; (3) that it violates equal protection and due process; and (4) that it deprives the jury of the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Baltimore City Circuit Judge Carol E. Smith denied Plaintiff’s motion to overturn the cap and reduced the Plaintiff’s verdict to his medical expenses and $620,000.00 in non-economic damages (the malpractice must have occurred between October 2002 and September 2003).

June 3, 2008

Forum Non Conveniens Opinion in Randallstown High School Shootings Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in Peyton-Henderson v. Evans that Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge George L. Russell, III did not err in transferring a lawsuit from Baltimore City to Baltimore County because of the May 2004 shooting at Randallstown High School.

The ruling covers no new ground, but (sort of) retired Judge Charles E. Moylan Jr. lays out the history of the Maryland case law on forum non conveniens. The court underscored the more modern Maryland trend to focus on “the interests of justice” as opposed to concentrating on convenience of the witness. With a standard as amorphous as “interests of justice” you can be sure that excluding some insane finding, the appeals court will defer to the trial judge. Therefore, I’m surprised this case was initially appealed.

Judge Moylan jabbed lightly at personal injury lawyers who forum shop, quoting now Court of Special Appeals Judge Krauser, “while home may be where the heart is, it is not necessarily where the largest recovery lies.” But, in the next breath, Judge Moylan points out that “is beside the point when dealing with the venue statute rather than forum non conveniens” because Plaintiff is well within his or her right to sue anywhere where the venue is proper.

February 13, 2008

New Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the Titan v. Advance case yesterday. Titan is a case where the Plaintiff alleged negligent repair of a roof that led to the clogging of a roof drain, which then resulted in the Plaintiff’s premises to flood. It is located on Eastern Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, at Crown Industrial Park. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants.

As you might have expected, the amount of rain after the job was completed was relevant. Defendants introduced, over objection, a certified copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s weather reports from Baltimore-Washington Airport, which reported rain patterns at the airport between the day the roofing work was completed and the date of the flooding off the roof. Plaintiff objected that the weather at Baltimore Washington Airport on that day was not relevant because it was 10 miles from the site.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Arrie W. Davis, found that the documents were relevant because the parties disputed the amount of rainfall. The court further found that despite the length of the documents, the jury could reasonably interpret the recorded rainfall amounts and the court needed no expert opinion to explain the documents. As to the 10 miles between the Baltimore-Washington Airport and the site of the property, the court concluded this went to the weight of the evidence as opposed to admissibility.

February 7, 2008

Voir Dire in Maryland: Follow-up to Judge Sweeney’s Article on Voir Dire in the Daily Record

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last month, retired Howard County Judge Dennis M. Sweeney wrote an article in a series of articles he is writing for the Daily Record. The latest article discusses voir dire. One point Judge Sweeney makes is that judges have an aversion to proposed voir dire questions that seem to be uniform in every case the lawyer tries. In my last trial, the defense lawyer did not change the names of the parties from the voir dire that they had apparently cut and pasted from the last case. Judge Sweeney writes that they may poison the trial judge to ignore specific voir dire questions—usually put at the end of voir dire consistent with cut-and-paste practices—that may have more merit.

The article also points to dicta in Landon v. Zorn, 389 Md. 206 (2005), a failure-to -diagnose medical malpractice case in which the Plaintiffs appealed a defense verdict. The basis for the appeal was the trial judge’s refusal to ask whether the jury panel had any “preconceived opinion or bias or prejudice in favor of, or against Plaintiffs in personal injury cases in general and medical malpractice cases in particular?” The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. that it is the responsibility of the attorneys to “propound voir dire questions designed to elicit potential bias from jurors, and not to bootstrap a tort reform argument on appeal to a general question inquiring into any potential ‘bias or prejudice’ against plaintiffs in personal injury or medical malpractice cases.” But as Judge Sweeney notes, the court indicated that the lower court may have had an obligation to include a question more tailored to the plaintiff in that case if requested by the attorneys. Judge Sweeney then said that this “places counsel in the position of having to ask the question in many different formulations to hit on the one that may be correct and specific enough.”

But Maryland trial judges love to rush through voir dire as it is, so I shuttered to imagine giving multiple formulations to these judges. I wrote to Judge Sweeney and asked if he had any solution to the Landon v. Zorn problem of having to ask in many formulations to find the most appropriate, noting my concern about how multiple formulations of the same question might risk annoying the court. Judge Sweeney offered this practical response:

May 14, 2007

Wrongful Death Auto and Truck Accident Verdicts and Settlements in Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC: How Much Are the Recoveries?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

According to Metro Verdicts Monthly, the median motor vehicle accident wrongful death case in Maryland is worth $505,000.

This is interesting information. What does this data tell us? Not much. Why? The motor vehicle accident data has little probative value because it does not include the amount of the insurance policy at issue. We have settled fatal accident claims for $20,000 where that is all the insurance, and the defendant had no meaningful assets.

Uninsured motorist cases also bring down the median and average values because plaintiffs’ attorneys are overly reasonable in requesting damages because the plaintiff is often limited in the damages they can recover.

October 1, 2006

Maryland Cap on Non-Economic Damages

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The cap on pain and suffering damages in Maryland for claims arising after today has increased to $680,000. This is also the maximum cap on any non-medical malpractice wrongful death case if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in a non-medical malpractice case is now $1,020,000.

The pain and suffering cap in Maryland in medical malpractice cases as the result of a bill that the General Assembly passed last year remains at $650,000. This is also the maximum cap on medical malpractice wrongful death cases if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in medical malpractice cases that arise after today is $812,500.

September 11, 2006

Food Lion v. McNeill and Discovery Objection Timing

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last month, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided Food Lion v. McNeill. The issue in McNeill is whether the testimony of an expert may be excluded at trial based on a disclosure made during discovery in response to interrogatories, that has neither been claimed nor determined to be a discovery violation, but that is challenged at trial as deficient for failing to provide information as required by Maryland Rule 2-402(f)(1)(A).

2022 Update: This case ended up being more often cited than I thought.

Facts of Food Lion v. McNeill

April 11, 2006

Medical Malpractice High Low Agreement Vacated

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals this morning issued its opinion in Maslow v. Vanguri. In this case, the court found that Plaintiff’s pursuit of an appeal after an adverse judgment given up the doctor’s insurance company’s obligation to pay her $250,000 that it owed to her as the result of a “high-low” settlement agreement that was reached by the attorneys during a medical malpractice trial.

The Facts of the Case

The genesis for this case was a medical malpractice action in Baltimore County. The plaintiff contended that surgery was performed – a vagotomy and antrectomy. This is a surgical procedure intended to reduce the frequency of stomach ulcers. On the 5th day of what was apparently a hard-fought medical malpractice trial, a “high/low” agreement was reached. The parties and their malpractice attorneys agreed that, regardless of the jury’s verdict, the Plaintiff would receive a minimum $250,000 recovery but a $1,000,000 maximum. The parties put on the record and agreed in writing to the “high-low” agreement, which included a clause that the Plaintiff and the doctor would waive any right of appeal.