Davis v. Martinez, 65 A.3d 810

Dionne and Darryl Davis sued Tania Little Martinez for negligently causing a car crash in the Prince George’s County circuit court.
Martinez tendered the $20,000 liability policy limit, which State Farm (Davises’ UIM carrier) rejected to preserve subrogation rights.
Davises later added aCount against State Farm for breach of contract and/or statutory duty for failure to pay UIM benefits; State Farm also filed a cross-claim against Martinez.
Martinez moved in limine to preclude any reference to her insurance policy or to State Farm as a party, and the trial court granted the motion.
At trial, the jury found Martinez was not negligent; Davises sought a new trial arguing the State Farm exclusion prejudiced them; the trial court denied the motion.
Davises appealed challenging the exclusion of State Farm’s presence and identity from the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding State Farm from jury knowledge.	Davises contend King requires disclosure of a UIM carrier when a carrier is a party.	State Farm argues disclosure is improper or unnecessary where only privacy concerns or damages are at issue.	No, the exclusion was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

King v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 157 Md.App. 287, 850 A.2d 428 (Md. App. 2004) (disclosure of UIM carrier’s identity is required; hiding it is reversible error)
Farley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 355 Md. 34, 733 A.2d 1014 (Md. 1999) (exclude UIM presence only if not in controversy; here full presence should be disclosed)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182, 553 A.2d 1268 (Md. 1989) (amount of UIM coverage not relevant to damages; presence may be disclosed)
Medina v. Peralta, 724 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1999) (pretrial exclusion of UM/UIM insurer identity can taint trial; public policy against charades)
Wheeler v. Creekmore, 469 S.W.2d 559 (Ky. 1971) (jury entitled to know the insurer’s identity when insurer is a party)