Connors v. Government Employees Insurance
113 A.3d 595
Md.2015Background
- On Aug. 14, 2009, Adam Pond backed a vehicle into Robert and Linda Connors; both were injured and Robert later died from his injuries. Pond’s insurer (Allstate) paid $100,000 to each Connors (policy limits).
- The Connors’ GEICO policy provided UIM limits of $300,000 per person / $300,000 per accident.
- The Connors claimed GEICO owed $300,000 each (total up to the $300,000 per‑accident cap), minus payments from the tortfeasor, for a net $200,000 still due; GEICO contended it owed only $100,000 total after crediting Allstate’s $200,000.
- Trial court and Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed with GEICO; the issue was taken to the Maryland Court of Appeals on contract interpretation only.
- The core interpretive question was how the policy’s per‑person and per‑accident limits interact and at what point payments by the tortfeasor are credited against GEICO’s obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to apply per‑person vs. per‑accident UIM limits | Connors: calculate individually per person ($300k each), subtract tortfeasor payment for each, then apply $300k per‑accident cap (resulting in GEICO owing an additional $200k) | GEICO: apply the $300k per‑accident cap first, then subtract tortfeasor payments from that aggregate amount (resulting in $100k owed) | Court: policy unambiguous; apply per‑person limits within per‑accident context but credit tortfeasor payments against the per‑accident cap (GEICO owed $100k total) |
| When to deduct tortfeasor payments | Connors: deduct Allstate payments from each individual per‑person entitlement before aggregating | GEICO: deduct Allstate payments from the aggregate per‑accident limit as the final step | Held: deduct tortfeasor payments after applying per‑person and per‑accident calculations — i.e., as a final credit under the reduction clause |
| Ambiguity / construction against drafter | Connors: policy should be read in insured’s favor; ambiguous language resolves for insured | GEICO: policy is not ambiguous; ordinary contract rules apply | Held: policy is not ambiguous; ordinary contract interpretation governs; no need to invoke pro‑insured rule |
| Effect of policy reduction provision | Connors: reduction clause should not defeat per‑person recoveries up to declared limits | GEICO: reduction clause operates to reduce total UIM exposure by amounts paid by tortfeasor | Held: reduction clause (subsection (4) and definition) mandates crediting tortfeasor payments against GEICO’s UIM liability as final adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- Waters v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 328 Md. 700 (gap‑theory governs UIM recovery)
- DeHaan v. State Farm, 393 Md. 163 (interpret insurance policies using ordinary contract rules)
- Megonnell v. United States Auto Ass’n, 368 Md. 633 (ambiguous policy terms construed for insured)
- Cochran v. Norkunas, 398 Md. 1 (give effect to each clause of a contract)