History
  • No items yet
midpage
18 A.3d 830
Md.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Accident occurred Sept. 10, 2005; Comer (motorcycle rider) collided with Frey (car driver) on Hallowing Point Road, Maryland.
  • Comer sustained serious injuries with medical expenses over $200,000; injuries largely permanent.
  • Comer’s motorcycle was insured by Progressive with UM/UIM limits of $50,000 per person.
  • Comer resided with his father in Anne Arundel County; GEICO Family Auto Policy provided $300,000 UM/UIM coverage for the household.
  • Erie Insurance paid $100,000 liability coverage to Comer; Progressive denied excess UM/UIM due to set-off rules.
  • GEICO denied UM/UIM coverage on the basis of exclusion 4, which excludes bodily injury to an insured occupying an insured vehicle not described in declarations and not covered by liability coverage of the policy.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether GEICO’s exclusion 4 is valid under the Insurance Article. Comer: exclusion is ambiguous and invalid unless expressly authorized. Comer: exclusion is clear and authorized by statute. Exclusion 4 is authorized by statute and precludes coverage.
Whether GEICO’s policy provides UM/UIM coverage to Comer under the facts. Basic UM/UIM provisions support coverage for Comer as an insured occupant. Exclusion 4 defeats coverage for this scenario. Policy excludes coverage; Comer not entitled to UM/UIM benefits.

Key Cases Cited

  • Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. State Farm, 262 Md. 305 (1971) (exclusions may not remove coverage when defined; but exclusions within policy may modify broader coverage)
  • Powell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 86 Md.App. 98 (1991) (exclusion authorized to prevent insured from pooling vehicles’ coverages)
  • West American Ins. Co. v. Popa, 352 Md. 455 (1998) (court treats statutorily mandated coverages and exclusions with caution; exclusions not always invalid)
  • Nasseri v. GEICO, 390 Md. 188 (2005) (discusses scope of uninsured/underinsured coverage and exclusions)
  • Stearman v. State Farm, 381 Md. 436 (2004) (validates legislative authorization for exclusions in UM/UIM)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Government Employees Insurance v. Comer
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date Published: Apr 26, 2011
Citations: 18 A.3d 830; 419 Md. 89; 2011 Md. LEXIS 222; 19, September Term, 2008
Docket Number: 19, September Term, 2008
Court Abbreviation: Md.
Log In
    Government Employees Insurance v. Comer, 18 A.3d 830