Berry & State Farm v. Queen
233 A.3d 42
Md.2020Background
- Two related cases challenged whether Maryland's uninsured motorist coverage must reimburse "loss of use" damages (e.g., rental car costs) when an insured's vehicle is damaged by an uninsured driver.
- Misc. No. 10 (Queen): Andrae Queen rented a replacement vehicle after an uninsured motorist damaged his car; State Farm denied his uninsured motorist property damage claim for the rental cost and the federal district court certified a question of Maryland law.
- No. 63 (Hoyle / Md. Ins. Admin.): Arndrea Hoyle rented a car while her parked vehicle was repaired; State Farm paid collision benefits but refused the uninsured motorist portion of rental costs; the Maryland Insurance Administration determined State Farm acted arbitrarily, but the circuit court sided with State Farm and the Administration appealed to this Court.
- Both cases raise the single legal question whether the statutory phrase "damage to property," as incorporated into the uninsured motorist statute, includes loss of use damages such as rental expenses, notwithstanding policy language or exclusions.
- During the litigation the General Assembly enacted H.B. 144 (2020) expressly amending the statute to state that uninsured motorist coverage includes "loss of use of the insured vehicle," a departmental bill the Court viewed as a clarifying confirmation of the interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory phrase "damage to property" (as incorporated into Md. Ins. §19-509) requires insurers to cover loss-of-use damages (e.g., rental costs) | Claimants: "damage to property"—given ordinary meaning, precedent, and remedial purpose—includes loss of use; policies cannot limit statutorily required coverage | State Farm: statute is unambiguous and does not explicitly include "loss of use"; policy limits/exclusions control; D'Ambrogi is inapplicable | Court: "damage to property" includes loss of use; uninsured motorist coverage must reimburse such damages despite contrary policy language |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Elec. Ry. Co. v. William A. Fingles, 135 Md. 574 (1920) (held damages for injured but not destroyed personal property include repair cost plus value of use while repaired)
- D'Ambrogi v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Bd., 269 Md. 198 (1973) (interpreted predecessor statute to require Fund payment for loss-of-use rental costs)
- Taylor v. King, 241 Md. 50 (1965) (reaffirmed Maryland rule that damages for vehicle injury may include reasonable loss-of-use allowance)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 468 Md. 239 (2020) (context on insured/underinsured coverage as statutorily required and remedial in nature)