Buckley v. Brethren Mutual Insurance
207 Md. App. 574
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Buckley, insured under Brethren’s UM coverage, settled with Betts/GEICO for policy limits ($100,000) and signed a broad release releasing all entities; Buckley later sought UM benefits from Brethren for remaining medical expenses.
- Brethren waived subrogation against Betts but did not clearly consent/refuse to consent to Buckley’s GEICO settlement offer under Md. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-511(a)-(c).
- Buckley asserted Brethren’s consent was given and/or that § 19-511(e) preserved her UM claim; Brethren argued the release barred the UM claim and that consent (or lack thereof) should be decided later.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Brethren, holding the release barred Buckley’s UM claim, relying on Pemrock and related cases about broad releases.
- MIA concluded Brethren acted in bad faith in denying Buckley’s UM claim; this decision was not dispositive to the UM settlement question, which this Court later reviewed.
- The Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment, remanding to determine (1) whether the release precludes Buckley’s UM claim under § 19-511(e) and (2) whether Brethren consented to the GEICO settlement; Buckley will retain UM rights unless Brethren consented to the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a broad release to ‘all other persons’ bars UM recovery under § 19-511(e). | Buckley argues release cannot prejudice UM claim under § 19-511(e). | Brethren argues release protects all parties, including Brethren. | Buckley’s UM claim not barred by the release. |
| Whether Brethren consented to the GEICO settlement. | Buckley argues Brethren consented as stated in pleadings/affidavits. | Brethren’s consent is disputed; Kritsings governs consent standards. | Remand necessary to decide Brethren’s consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pemrock, Inc. v. Essco Co., 252 Md. 374, 252 Md. 374 (1969) (general release releasing ‘all other persons’ can discharge other parties)
- Peters v. Butler, 253 Md. 7, 253 Md. 7 (1969) (general releases to all mankind discharge other tortfeasors)
- Cupidon v. Alexis, 335 Md. 230, 335 Md. 230 (1994) (releases of ‘all other persons’ may not release non-named drivers depending on context)
- Kritsings v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 189 Md.App. 367, 189 Md.App. 367 (2009) (consent to settlement under § 19-511 analyzed; denial of liability implies no consent)
- Maurer v. Penn. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Co., 404 Md. 60, 404 Md. 60 (2007) (consent to settlement can limit tort defenses)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 291 Md. 721, 291 Md. 721 (1981) (public policy favoring compensation under UM laws)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Heffernan, 399 Md. 598, 399 Md. 598 (2007) (liberal construction of UM provisions to compensate victims)