Maryland Courts

May 14, 2007

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

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.

April 5, 2007

First Party Bad Faith Passes the Maryland Legislature

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Senate has passed House Bill 425 and the Maryland House of Delegates today also passed the bill, which puts a new requirement of good faith for insurance companies dealing with their insureds. The bill now heads to Governor O’Malley for his signature. The Governor has previously pledged support for the bill.

This issue has been a reoccurring topic on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. See this post and this post. My partner, Laura G. Zois, testified before the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates about three weeks ago on this very issue. I know that after the bill passed the Maryland Senate, there were a lot of lobbying efforts from the insurance companies to keep it from passing in the House of Delegates. They pushed the vote back, and I began to doubt whether Maryland would join most states that already have first-party bad faith. I’m thrilled the Maryland Assembly put the interest of Maryland injury victims and consumers ahead of the insurance company and their lobbyists.

This is a huge win for victims and their attorneys who are fighting to get injury victims a fair recovery for their injuries and the benefits of the insurance contract for which they are paying premiums.

March 13, 2007

Peter Angelos Opposes Comparative Negligence

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Gazette reports today that Peter G. Angelos is lobbying the General Assembly’s judicial committees to kill a bill that would allow Maryland to join 46 other states in switching from a standard of contributory negligence to one of comparative fault.

Angelos’ fear, which all Maryland plaintiffs’ lawyers fully share, is that with comparative negligence we might lose joint and several liability, which allows plaintiffs to seek full recovery from culpable parties who are not 50% responsible. All defendants who are substantially contributing causes of a plaintiff’s injury are individually fully responsible for the total amount of a jury award to a successful plaintiff. A separate court action later decides how much each defendant pays.

More to the point for Mr. Angelos, his firm handles asbestos cases where some responsible parties are bankrupt. Mr. Angelos’ concern is his potential failure to gain a full recovery in these asbestos cases.

February 5, 2007

Will Maryland Drop Contributory Negligence

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland legislature is considering joining the rest of the civilized world – okay, I’ll kill the hyperbole – the vast majority of jurisdictions by adopting a comparative negligence standard in Maryland. The contributory negligence standard we have in Maryland is harsh to injury victims and creates genuine challenges for Maryland personal injury lawyers seeking justice for their clients. Under contributory negligence, the accident or medical malpractice victim’s failure to exercise due care which contributes even in the slightest way to the plaintiff’s injuries is an absolute bar to recovery. Under this rule, even if the jury believed the plaintiff was only 1% at fault for his/her injuries, the plaintiff would be completely barred from recovering for those injuries.

All but 5 states have moved into the modern era and adopted contributory negligence. It would be a blessing for injury victims in Maryland if Maryland dropped that number down to 4.

The Maryland Gazette posted an interesting – albeit pro-business – article on Friday on this issue of Maryland reconsidering contributory negligence.

January 26, 2007

Prince George’s County Courthouse Fire

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A fire broke out at the Prince George’s County courthouse on Wednesday, destroying a large section of the 126-year-old building. It damaged two floors of the courthouse. The old courthouse is connected to a modern wing by a series of corridors.

This is the second time the courthouse has been on fire in a little over two years. The P.G. Courthouse was gutted by fire in November 2004, just months before they scheduled the courthouse to open after a $25 million renovation. It is amazing this happened again. No word yet on the cause of the fire.

.

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

August 15, 2006

Prince George’s County Judge Missouri Leads National Judicial Organization

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Prince George’s County Circuit Court Judge William D. Missouri has been elected chair of the National Conference of State Trial Judges, which is the most prestigious organization of general jurisdiction state trial judges in the country. Judge Missouri, a former Prince George’s County prosecutor, has been on the bench in P.G. County since 1988.

August 14, 2006

New Maryland Insurance Coverage Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last month, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hanson. The issue in the case involved whether multiple exposures to lead-based paint over multiple years constituted multiple occurrences such that the insurance policies would stack or whether the policy’s “limitation of liability” provision defining continuous exposure as one occurrence, thus limiting the amount of insurance coverage. This is a classic long-term toxic exposure case involving many insurance policies. The question is which insurance carrier(s) is/are on the risk and whether the policies stack.

The issue, in this case, is whether the continuous trigger theory applies. The continuous trigger is a relatively recent idea in the law that deals with the problem of repeated injury. Under this theory, a loss occurs for insurance coverage during any time of exposure. It is sometimes called the triple trigger because coverage is invoked in one of three ways: initial exposure, continuing exposure, or by a manifestation of loss.

In the underlying case in Maryland Casualty v. Hanson, the plaintiffs were children exposed to lead paint at a property owned by the defendant on North Central Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland. The exposure to lead-based paint was over six years, spanning several insurance policies.

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.