Carter v. Huntington Title & Escrow, LLC
24 A.3d 722
| Md. | 2011Background
- Carter sues Huntington Title & Escrow for title insurance overcharge tied to lender's policy during refinance.
- Carter alleges Huntington charged the original higher rate instead of the MIA-approved reissue rate.
- Alleged violations include Maryland Insurance Article § 27-216 and related 'Best Price' and filing requirements; plus a money had and received claim and negligent misrepresentation.
- Huntington moved to dismiss, arguing MIA primary jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Carter argued common law nexus and concurrent remedies.
- Circuit Court dismissed; Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address MIA primary jurisdiction vs. judicial remedy in this context.
- Court holds MIA has primary jurisdiction over the statutory claim and that Carter must pursue administrative relief first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Insurance Article give the MIA primary jurisdiction over money had and received claims? | Carter argues statute does not bar judicial action; claims are statutory, not purely common law. | Huntington contends comprehensive statutory scheme grants primary jurisdiction to MIA. | Yes; MIA has primary jurisdiction over the statutory claim. |
| Are Carter's negligent misrepresentation claims subject to primary jurisdiction or concurrent with judicial relief? | Vicente and Zappone allow concurrent remedies for independent common-law claims. | Insurance Article framing and agency expertise justify primary jurisdiction. | Primary jurisdiction applies to the statutory claim; negligent misrepresentation treated as dependent on statutory framework. |
| Is Carter required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing judicial relief? | Administrative exhaustion should not bar independent common-law recovery. | Zappone favors exhaustion where agency expertise governs the claim. | Administrative relief must be pursued first; court stays proceedings pending agency outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zappone v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 349 Md. 45 (Md. 1998) (establishes primary, concurrent, and exclusive jurisdiction framework)
- Mardirossian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 376 Md. 640 (Md. 2003) (concurrent contract/insurance remedies; common law recovery discussed)
- Vicente v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 105 Md. App. 13 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) (overruled Vicente regarding exclusive administrative remedy in some contexts)
- Arthur v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Florida, 569 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2009) (HUD-1 statements and statutory violation connection to remedies)
- Levine v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (HUD-1 misrepresentation theory and duty to disclose rates)
- Muhl v. Magan, 313 Md. 462 (Md. 1988) (administrative remedy exhaustion framework guidance)
- Converge Servs. Group, LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462 (Md. 2004) (judicial relief considerations with agency expertise)
- Arroyo v. Board of Education of Howard County, 381 Md. 646 (Md. 2004) (primary jurisdiction/exhaustion clarifications)