Connors v. Government Employees Insurance
88 A.3d 162
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Two Connors insured under GEICO UIM policy (300k per person / per accident).
- Tortfeasor Allstate policy exhausted by $200k paid to cover two injured parties.
- Maryland Insurance Administration found $100k UIM remaining and GEICO paid $100k.
- Litigation filed for declaratory relief; circuit court granted GEICO summary judgment.
- Issue central: whether UIM benefits start from per-person or per-accident limit when two insureds are injured in one accident.
- Court confirms two-insured scenario uses per-accident limit of 300k, with 100k remaining after credit for tortfeasor payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What starting point governs UIM calculation when two insureds are injured? | Connors argued per-person limit starts; aggregate 600k. | GEICO argued per-accident limit starts; aggregate limited by 300k, with 100k remaining. | Starting point is per-accident limit; remaining 100k UIM. |
| How does 'subject to' language affect the two-layer limits? | Subject to should subjugate per-accident to per-person amounts. | Subject to incorporates per-person cap into per-accident calculation. | Subject to language narrows liability to 100k remaining. |
| Does gap theory apply to credit for tortfeasor payments? | Would allow more if credits allocated per person. | Credit full 200k against per-accident limit aligns with gap theory. | Gap theory applied; 100k remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waters v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 328 Md. 700 (Md. 1992) (explains Maryland gap vs excess theories and purpose of UIM)
- Hoffman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 309 Md. 167 (Md. 1987) (recognizes supplemental UIM allowed to contract for higher amounts)
- Souras v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 78 Md. App. 71 (Md. 1989) (statutory calculation for uninsured motorist coverage (g))
- Batson v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 85 Md. App. 467 (Md. 1991) (gap theory application to UIM calculation)
- Mitchell v. AARP Life Ins. Program, N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 140 Md. App. 102 (Md. 2001) (contract interpretation of insurance terms)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Souras, 78 Md. App. 71 (Md. 1989) (calculation method under UIM statute)