Kponve v. Allstate Insurance, 138 A.3d 1259

Austria Kponve (insured) sued a tortfeasor for injuries; the tortfeasor subsequently settled with Kponve for its policy limits.
Allstate, Kponve’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurer, intervened in the tort action and later moved to reduce the judgment to conform to its policy limits.
The circuit court denied Allstate’s post-trial motion to reduce the judgment.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed and placed the dispute on a procedural track consistent with Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller for resolution between insurer and insured.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether Miller remains good law and whether Allstate bore the burden of proving its policy limits in the tort action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kponve)	Defendant's Argument (Allstate)	Held
Whether Allstate must prove its UM/UIM policy limits in the tort action to permit reduction of a judgment	Kponve: Miller does not apply; Allstate should have to prove policy limits in the tort trial so judgment can be reduced to UM/UIM limits now	Allstate: Miller governs; where no contract action was filed, insurer does not bear burden to prove limits in the tort case	Held: Miller remains good law; because this was a pure tort action and Allstate was not sued in contract, Allstate did not have the burden to prove policy limits in the tort trial; remand placed case on Miller track for insurer–insured adjustment

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182, 553 A.2d 1268 (1989) (establishes procedure for reducing tort judgments to UM/UIM policy limits via agreement or contract action between insured and insurer)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kponve, 225 Md. App. 370, 124 A.3d 1147 (2015) (intermediate appellate decision adopted by Court of Appeals; explains Miller’s application where insurer intervenes in a tort action)
TIG Ins. Co. v. Monongahela Power Co., 437 Md. 372, 86 A.3d 1245 (2014) (example of Court of Appeals adopting Court of Special Appeals opinion)