Keller v. Serio & GEICO
85 A.3d 283
Md.2014Background
- Kara Keller injured in an April 21, 2006 rear-end collision with Charles Serio; medical bills totaled $27,355.69.
- GEICO, Keller's UM insurer, intervened as a defendant to protect potential interest; underlying trial focused on causation and damages.
- GEICO did not present evidence, question witnesses, or argue to the jury; UM coverage was not before the jury.
- Keller requested a jury instruction explaining the nature of UM coverage; the court refused, deeming insurance not at issue.
- Verdict awarded Keller $27,355.69 in medical expenses; future medical expenses and non-economic damages listed as $0.
- Intermediate appellate court denied relief; Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide if failure to instruct on UM coverage was reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is failure to instruct on UM coverage reversible error when coverage is not before the jury? | Keller argues UM presence confused jury; instruction essential to her theory. | GEICO contends insurance not at issue; instruction unnecessary. | Not reversible error; UM coverage not before jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boone v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 150 Md. App. 204 ((2003)) (UM coverage context; defense clarified affects jury understanding)
- Levine v. Rendler, 272 Md. 1 ((1974)) ( entitlement to theory of the case depends on evidence)
- Farley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 355 Md. 34 ((1999)) (insurance presence not automatically disclosed; amount not in controversy)
- Leizear v. Butler, 226 Md. 171 ((1961)) (jury verdict guidance; damages may be awarded on lines without full coherence)
- Buck v. Cam’s Broadloom Rugs, Inc., 328 Md. 51 ((1992)) (limits of review of jury awards; not all discrepancies render verdicts invalid)
- Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 ((2011)) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instruction decisions)