Ace American Insurance v. Williams, 15 A.3d 761

Widow Lori Williams filed a 2003 wrongful death action on behalf of herself and the decedent's children (Lori Williams, Jeremy Williams, Shane Williams).
Two related actions followed: Williams I (Williams I) and Williams II (the respondents Steven and Michael Williams).
Settlement discussions in 2005 culminated in a May 17, 2005 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Entry of Judgment, which the circuit court granted, purporting to settle all claims including use plaintiffs not joined in Williams I.
The May 19, 2005 order stated that all claims and potential claims arising from Michael Williams’ death would be deemed satisfied upon payment and costs, effectively extinguishing those claims.
Respondents, who were minor sons not properly joined as use plaintiffs in Williams I, later sued in Williams II in 2005, arguing Williams I lacked finality and that not all beneficiaries were joined or consented to the settlement.
Court of Special Appeals held there was no final judgment in Williams I and that the circuit court’s approvals and the “one action” rule did not bar Williams II or justify the earlier settlement; Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting COSA’s reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams I produced a final judgment despite respondents not being joined as use plaintiffs	Ace argues Williams I was final.	Respondents were not properly joined; no final judgment.	No final judgment in Williams I; defects require reopening.
How Walker v. Essex and Rule 15-1001(b) affect joinder and settlement	Rule 15-1001(b) permits joinder of all beneficiaries; settlement without them is improper.	Settlement can be approved with court involvement to protect beneficiaries.	Rule 15-1001(b) requires joiner or court approval to protect beneficiaries; ex parte approval improper.
Whether Williams II summary judgments were proper given the one-action rule and joinder issues	Defendants’ summary judgments were proper under the prior final judgment.	Different defendants not named in Williams I cannot be barred by one-action rule.	Reversed as to some defendants; consolidation required; one-action rule applied to protect all beneficiaries.
Whether Ace is entitled to attorney’s fees for Williams II	Fees should be awarded given bad-faith procedures in Williams I.	No fees due due to improper conduct.	Attorney’s fees denied.

Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (1990) (one-action rule requires all beneficiaries or court approval for settlement)
Bashe v. Boyce, 72 Md. 140 (1890) (wrongful death action joinder and satisfaction principles)
Stone v. CSX Transp., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 602 (S.D. W.Va. 1998) (consent to release and settlement in wrongful death actions)