*1
May *2 Odenton, Michael L. for appellant. Sandul Wilson, Leone, (Amy Wilson, Charles E. III L. McCarthy Rockville, brief), LLP appellee. on the for SALMON, WOODWARD, Panel: MEREDITH and JJ.
SALMON, J.
David and Blackburn filed a Brigitte complaint for declara- (hereinafter tory relief Erie Insurance against Exchange “Erie”).1 Erie filed an answer to the complaint and subse- complaint, mistakenly 1. In the Erie was identified as “Erie Insurance Group." appellate Erie filed with its brief a Consent Motion to Correct Caption, correcting Exchange." its name to “Erie Insurance of facts that stipulation entered into a parties
quently as follows: reads 2004, Michael David Blackburn
1. August On accident caused allegedly involved in a motor vehicle Quinn; Patrick negligence Joseph injuries as a allegedly 2. Mr. Blackburn suffered serious incident; result accident, Michael That at the time of automobile within the of his acting scope
David Blackburn was government; with the United States employment filed for benefits under the Federal 4. That a claim was Act for the Plaintiff with Employees Compensation Labor; Department States United of Labor asserted a Department 5. The United States in the of Two Hun- worker’s lien amount *3 Three Five Dollars Thousand Hundred Forty dred Six ($246,305.66); Sixty-six Cents incident, of the the Plaintiff was 6. That at the time the a automobile with personal- policy covered under Defendant, which Company, provided Erie Insurance in the insured motorist benefits uninsured/under $250,000per person; amount of incident, tortfeasor, the the the alleged 7. At time of Farm Insurance Quinn, by Company was insured State liability of insurance limits policy providing under $100,000per person; 17, 2005, Farm offered its January policy State
8. On Plaintiff; $100,000 the limits of $100,000 compliance the accepted 9. That the Plaintiff § Article and thereaf- Maryland with Insurance 19-511 $27,396.28 in Department ter of Labor lien; the reimbursement of worker’s lien thereafter closed the United 10. That the government; States liability Erie Insurances
11. That the believe plaintiffs [sic] $150,0000; is the Plain- liability
12. That Erie Insurance believes its $3,694.25;2 not exceed tiffs does that determine parties request 13. That Court are from the proper under statute what reductions policy. Erie Insurance UM/UIM summary and Erie filed motions for Both Blackburns The agreed based on the statement of facts. Circuit judgment summary judgment Frederick County granted Court for motion Erie on 2008. As February part filed ... liability the court declared “that the judgment, [Erie] $3,694.34.” seven-page opinion The court also filed a written in which it its reasons for the Black- explained ruling against in favor of Erie. burns and interpre- is the correct separates parties issue (2006 Article,
tation of Maryland RepLVol.), Code Insurance 19-513(e), which reads: (e) Reduction due to workers’ compensation benefits.—Ben- §§ efits under the 19-505 payable coverages described and 19-509 of this subtitle shall reduced to the extent be that the has recipient recovered benefits under workers’ compensation laws of a state or the federal for government which the provider
has not been reimbursed.
Section 19-505 of the Insurance Article deals with person al injury protection coverage and section 19-509 concerns coverage. motor vehicle See uninsured/underinsured Hoff Asso., 167, 178, man v. Auto. United Services *4 (1987) 541(c) (dealing A.2d 1320 with section of Article 48A of (1957,1986, the Maryland Code which was the Repl.Vol.), Maryland governed section of the Insurance that unin Code motorist to its re-codifiea coverage prior sured/underinsured Article). tion into the Insurance present 2. Erie's arithmetic was off nine its method of calcula- cents. Under tion, $3,694.34 [$250,000- the actual amount due would have been 150,000 $100,000(State $146,305.66], payment)$ Farm less .508 19-513(e), section as to the facts interprets applied
Erie now obligated pay that it is meaning here presented, under the Blackburns zero dollars uninsured/underinsured Erie’s is based on the follow- policy. position of its provisions had calculations: the Blackburns ing uninsured/underinsured $250,000 in the and it was amount coverage motorist $100,000-the amount that the Blackburns entitled to deduct insurer—from that Erie further Quinn’s figure. received from $218,909.38. the sum it was entitled to deduct contends. $27,396.28 $218,909.38 figure by deducting That calculated (the back to the federal amount that the Blackburns (the $246,305.66 amount that Mr. Blackburn from government) benefits from the had received in worker’s $218,909.38 Given the fact that exceed- government). federal $68,000, $150,000 than it is Erie’s that it position ed more Blackburns. nothing owes to the position to note that Erie’s is important present It it took in the circuit court. position different from slightly $3,694.34 court, Erie admitted that it owed In the circuit based on the assumption the Blackburns. That admission was repaid government the Blackburns had U.S. that i.e., Farm, received from they entire amount State $100,000.00. calculations in the circuit court were as Erie’s $250,000 $100,000 minus Farm (paid by equals follows: State $146,305.66, $150,000. Erie deducted which figúre From this the workers’ lien that Erie part was the not repaid government— believed that Blackburn had $3,694.34). $150,000.00-$146,305.66equals that even the underinsured though The Blackburns admit $250,000, in their with Erie was policy limits set forth policy $100,000.00—the amount that entitled to deduct the Erie was contend, Farm. The Blackburns received from State they $27,396.28 it essence, received government that when U.S. and, as a the federal consequence, its lien them against closed Therefore, according fully had been reimbursed. government $150,000.00. Blackburns, them Appellants Erie owes as follows: argument express *5 case, in compensation provider, this volun- tarily agreed accept portion to from recovery Mr. Quinn’s liability policy as reimbursement for the benefits it provided had to Mr. Blackburn.
If the States is satisfied with the payment by United Mr. Blackburn, Erie has no cause to assert that the government has not been reimbursed. Nor should Erie be allowed its escape obligations pay contractual for underinsured coverage motorist because the United not de- States did mand a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement for the benefits it had provided.
The Circuit Court for Frederick County, in declaring rights of the parties, rejected the Blackburns’ interpretation of 19-513(e), section saying: whole,
When Court considers the statute as a includ- ing scheme, its amendment and other statutes in the Court finds that under the circumstances and facts of this case, satisfaction of the lien not synonymous reim- with 19—513(e). bursement as contemplated by To do other- wise would defy common sense. It would result in a benefits, duplication windfall, indeed a to the Plain- tiff.....
II
9—513(e)
Section
of the Insurance Article was
amended
amendment,
19—513(e)
2001. Prior to the
section
read: “bene-
payable
fits
under the coverages
in §§
described
19-505 and
19-509 of this subtitle shall be reduced to the extent that the
recipient has recovered benefits under the workers’ compensa-
tion laws of a state or the
government.”
federal
Recently, the Court of Appeals interpreted the word “recov
“
19—513(e)
er”
as used
section
obtain,’
to mean ‘to get,’ ‘to
”
‘to come
possession of,’
into
‘to receive.’
Parry v. Allstate
Insurance, Co.,
130, 145,
(2009)
408 Md.
The 2001 amendment added of the workers’ provider “for which the 19-513(e) been has not been reimbursed.” Section has not *6 Therefore, in pertinent the statute reads since 2001. amended in ... coverages described “Benefits under part: payable to the extent this subtitle shall be reduced § 19-509 of com- under the workers’ has recovered benefits recipient for which the government a state or federal laws of pensation has not been compensation benefits of the workers’ provider added). recovered Plainly appellant (Emphasis reimbursed.” employ- benefits and his $246,305.26 compensation in workers’ $27,396.28of its only payments. er reimbursed for was 392, in Chapter the amendment is set forth purpose of limiting of of as follows: “For Maryland, Laws and personal injury protection available to the reductions the extent that the workers’ motorist insurers to uninsured under paid able to recover benefits insurer is compensation a state or the federal laws of compensation the workers’ government.” sought of the situation the amendment example
A clear Ins. the case of State Farm Mut. v. by remedy provided (1978). Comm’r, 663, 1114, At in the 392 A.2d issue interpretation Maryland the correct Farm case was State 48A, Article (1957, Cum.Supp.), 1978 Repl.Vol., 1972 Code 543(d), to section which was the statute predecessor section n 19-513(e).3 facts pertinent set forth the Appeals The Court of Farm as follows: State 31, 1974, July on employed
Patrick Morris was his own driving While Light Company. Gas Washington vehicle of his Morris’s employment, in the course automobile sought he Consequently, struck in the rear. in the amount compensation recovered workmen’s carrier. his insurance Subse- employer’s from $379.50 48A, (1957, Repl.Vol.), which included Maryland 1986 Article 3. Code 1997, 543(d) (1995, Maryland Repl. into Code was recodified section Vol.), Maryland of the Insurance Article 1996 Title subtitle 5 Laws, Chapter 11. negligent Morris a tort claim quently, pursued against third and this resulted in a settlement. Out of the party, settlement Morris reimbursed proceeds, $379.50 carrier, required by workmen’s insurance (1957, 101, § Art. Repl.Vol., Cum.Supp.), Code Morris then filed a claim for PIP benefits the amount of $1,119.28 carrier, his own automobile insurance against Company. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance State $739.78, 543(d) paid only maintaining Farm that under Art, 48A, $1,119.28 PIP benefits should be reduced by workmen’s benefits which Morris $379.50 received. Commissioner, a protest
Morris filed
with the Insurance
arguing that since he
back to his
workmen’s
employer’s
carrier
proceeds
out of the
$379.50
tortfeasor,
settlement with the
he
not
had
“recovered”
*7
workmen’s compensation
meaning
benefits within the
of
543(d).
26,
§
A hearing on the
held on
protest
August
1975,
attended Morris and his
well
attorney
as
as
a
representative of
Farm
attorney.
State
and its
More than
later,
5, 1976,
thirteen months
on October
the Insurance
decision,
Commissioner rendered a
holding that Morris’s
receipt of the
workmen’s
benefits was
$379.50
technical,
“only a
a
and not
true
in name
receipt,
[receipt]
only,
certainly
and
does not fall
purview
within the
of the
”
Statute as monies ‘recovered.’ The Commissioner ordered
State Farm to pay
plus
Morris
interest.
$379.50
In the State rejected Court the Insurance Commissioner’s “that a theory claimant who has in fact ob- benefits, tained certain monetary has nevertheless failed to later, ‘recover’ those benefits if he must out of different loss, proceeds, covering the same an of repay equivalent sum The money.” State Farm Court said:
The critical words in the statute are “has recovered.” The general meaning law of the verb “to recover” “to is obtain,” get,” of,” “to possession “to come into “to receive.” Clubs, Inc., 955, v. Chicago Garza Health 347 962 F.Supp. 512 Randles, v. 225, 231, Covert
(N.D.Ill.1972);
53 Ariz.
87 P.2d
Co.,
v. Flour
488,
(1939);
703,
Swader
Mills
103 Kan.
490
Dictionary, p.
Black’s Law
143,
(1918);
704,
144-145
176 P.
New International Dic
(rev.
ed.1968);
Webster’s
1440
4th
(2d
English Language, p.2081
tionary of
unabridged,
ed.
1961).
sense, “to recover” means “to succeed
In a narrower
Nero International Dic-
Webster’s
[legal] proceeding,”
in a
tionary
English Language, supra,
or “to obtain in
Black’s
in contrast
any legal
voluntary payment,”
manner
supra.
Law
See also Union Petroleum S.S. Co.
Dictionary,
denied,
States,
(2d
cert
752,
Cir.1927),
v. United
18 F.2d
753
(1927);
v.
760,
770,
Garza
47
As can be at least the State Court by forcing reached an unfair result the insured to reimburse insurance carrier for monies the personal injury protection to the workers’ already repaid insured had 19-513(e) that section was remedy problem, carrier. To the carrier to deduct the monies that only amended to allow already not back. the insured had earlier, the As mentioned Blackburns contend that the Government, United States as the workers’ compensation a provider, “voluntarily agreed accept portion of the recov from ... ery policy Farm’s] as reimbursement for the [State provided benefits it had to Mr. Blackburn.” Although it is not determinative, outcome it appears agreement on the not, part of the federal government suggested by appellants, at least if the “voluntary,” word is used to suggest reason, the government, for some charitably agreed to take less than what it was owed. This is by made clear Ed.1987), § (Lawyers U.S.C.S. which reads: Adjustment after recovery from a third person. If an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this subchapter §§ 8101 [5 USCS et. seq.] caused under circumstances creating legal liability a person other than the United States to pay and a damages, benefi- ciary entitled to compensation from the United States for that injury or death receives money or other property in satisfaction of that liability as the result suit or settle- behalf, ment him or in his the beneficiary, after deduct- ing therefrom the costs of suit and a reasonable attorney’s fee, shall refund to the United States the amount of com- pensation paid by the United States and any credit surplus on future payments of compensation payable to him for the court, injury. insurer, same No attorney, or other person shall pay or distribute to the or beneficiary his designee the proceeds of such suit or settlement without first satisfying or assuring satisfaction of the interest of the United States. The amount refunded to the United States shall be credited to the Employees’ Compensation Fund. If compensation has not been paid to the he beneficiary, shall credit the money or on property compensation payable to him the United However, States for the same injury. the beneficiary is retain, minimum, entitled to as a at least one-fifth of the net amount of the or money other property after remaining expenses of a deducted; suit or settlement have been addition to this minimum and at distribution, the time of an *9 fee attorney’s proportion- to a reasonable equivalent
amount the to the refund to United States. ate Comm’n, the in Farm v. Ins. the situation State Unlike back, paid in case was not carrier this compensation workers’ dollar, in workers’ what it out to Mr. Blackburn paid dollar for benefits. compensation 19—513(e) section, as That insofar unambiguous. is
Section under payable policies that benefits pertinent, provides is here vehicle “shall be re- coverage underinsured motor providing n has Blackburn] the recipient [Mr. duced to the extent laws of a compensation benefits under the workers’ recovered provider for which the government state or federal benefits has not been reimbursed.” worker’s added). facts, stipulated As shown (Emphasis for more than has not been “reimbursed” government federal to Mr. $218,000.00 benefits it Blackburn. commonly “reimbursement” is understood
The word
starting point”
determining
A “useful
“re-payment.”
mean
statutory
dictionary
term is that term’s
meaning
plain
v.
Comptroller
Treasury
Applications
definition.
Sci.
(2008)
185, 202,
A.2d 766
(quoting
405 Md.
Corp.,
Int’l
(2008)).
State,
155, 160,
v.
It is the accepted has been satisfied. But government federal support does not simply definition of the word “reimburse” fully “reim- that a carrier has been appellants’ argument it for all the monies repaid when it has not been bursed” Blackburn.4 advanced to Mr. dissenting hypothetical quoted in Janquilto's to the
4. Mr.
answer
518-20,
377-79)
clearly correct. The
opinion (op. at
971 A.2d at
course,
that the
of uninsured
recognize,
We
coverage
motorist
is to “assure financial
*10
innocent
of motor vehicle
are
victims
accidents who
unable
recover from financially irresponsible uninsured motorist.”
Company,
Lane v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance
321 Md.
165,
(1990).
169,
But,
purpose, is not limits. The words of the without statute itself the extent delineate of the statute’s reach. See Co., 436, Stearman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. (2004) 449, 539, 849 A.2d 547 the (noting General the insurance Assembly’s purpose enacting compulsory statutes was not to for complete recovery assure insurance all victims reaffirming of automobile accidents and that the beyond did not extend the prescribed statutory exclusion); coverage minimum the household see regarding Mayor City also & Council Baltimore v. Cassidy, 88, (1995) 757, Md. 656 A.2d that the court (noting “may not disregard plain meaning” of Workers’ Act). Compensation 95-96,
Id. at
vacate the entered the circuit court to the extent judgment the court declared that Erie owed the Blackburns however, $3,694.34. A arises with problem disposition, such a for two reasons.
First, a Erie filed memorandum of law the circuit in which it stated: to Plaintiff liability court “Erie’s Blackburn $3,694.25 ($250,000-$100,000, pursuant 19- $150,000-($246,305.75-$100,000), 509(g)=$150,000; pursuant 19—513(e)=$3,694.25).” §to take a Ordinarily, party cannot in an court that position appellate materially differs from the in the circuit court. position taken Secondly, perhaps important, more Erie never And, filed, filed a cross-claim. without a cross-claim being we *11 have no to amend the authority judgment so as to benefit an Accordingly, adopt we will an alternative appellee. suggestion Erie, is that we simply judgment made which affirm the the County.5 entered Circuit Court for Frederick AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT COSTS BE PAID BY TO APPELLANTS.
MEREDITH, J. majority opinion
Because the misconstrues the legislature’s offset, intent for the workers’ and the deprives insured of the underinsured motorist for which coverage I paid premiums, insured dissent. Mary- Esquire,
Andrew in his treatise Janquitto, entitled (2d ed.1999), describes the land Motor Vehicle Insurance development coverage, noting of underinsured motorist in \ie., coverage 8.6 at 308: “UM uninsured/underinsured Maryland motorist in coverage] originally designed to in place position the accident victim the same he or she would if occupy liability the uninsured tortfeasor maintained cover- argument acknowledged agreed 5. At oral Erie if we with its position, judgment simply should be affirmed it would be $3,694.34. required pay appellants in to the minimum age equal required coverage an amount responsibility Maryland.” under the financial laws of That evolved, has Mr. into purpose Janquitto explains, one of victim in the placing accident same the victim position would if the underinsured tortfeasor occupy maintained liabili- ty coverage equal insurance to the limits of coverage under the victim’s own underinsured policy. Janquitto motorist Mr. summarizes the progression statutory scheme as fol- (footnotes omitted): lows, id. at 314
The 1981 and 1983 amendments modified the underlying of the UM statute. Before the purpose introduction of reduction underinsured motorist in coverage Maryland, uniformly courts stated that the coverage UM was to the insured in the same place position he or she if would have the uninsured tortfeasor occupied maintained the minimum of required security amounts mandated by Title 17 of the Article. In Transportation light of amendments, and 1983 the UM statute is now designed to injured place the insured the same he or she position occupied would have if the tortfeasor liability maintained injured insurance in amounts equal insured’s unin- Thus, sured motorist limits. the financial responsibility Rather, of Title 17 are no provisions longer benchmark. injured insured’s uninsured motorist limits are now the guide. and, is a substantial change public policy, This in this it regard, longer is no accurate to state that the UM statute is designed solely protect victims from financially irresponsible uninsured motorists. A motorist under may, *12 statute, still, the current be financially responsible, yet definition, statutory be uninsured he because or she is not as financially responsible injured as the motorist. case,
In the present purchased from Erie Blackburn unin- coverage motorist providing benefits with sured/underinsured $250,000 a limit in the amount of per person. Accordingly, scheme, under Maryland’s statutory Blackburn was entitled to placed good be in as a financial position as he would have if the enjoyed negligent driver had maintained liability insur- $250,000 ance with a limit per of The person. statutory not achieve majority opinion the does adopted by construction such a result. offset de- statutory the majority opinion interprets (1997, Insurance Repl.Vol.), Maryland
scribed in Code (a) 19-513(e) is, view, not Article, my in a manner that § set forth in legislative purpose the expressed consistent with (b) the overall statute, not consistent with enacting i.e., insurance, permitting motorist objective of underinsured upon policy’s an amount based his own to recover insured lim- policy the tortfeasor’s inadequate limits rather than UM its. 8.10(C) at §in of his treatise Janquitto points
As Mr. out 19-513(e) recovery.” to double designed prevent “is so, is intended Mr. notes that offset being Janquitto That enables the in a manner that nevertheless to be applied motor- to the benefit of the underinsured injured party receive he coverage paid: ist for which has (e)’s legislative reflects a provision 19-513 offset Section worker’s claim be excluded injured intent that the UM only benefits availability compensation of workers’ To hold recovery. to avoid a double necessary the extent a filing is restricted to workers’ injured that an worker motorist, the uninsured pursuing claim and compensation doubt, will, not able to collect he or she no be from whom is inconsistent with judgment, even if he or she obtains a full to a victim of providing recovery public policy coverage compen- motorist. UM and workers’ an uninsured coverage, and distinct but provide separate types sation certainly compensate benefits do not compensation injured fully. worker omitted). (footnotes Id. at 421 In one of the footnotes Mr. passage, Janquitto emphasizes “[w]ork- above quoted do not for and suffer- provide pain ers’ does.” Id. at 421 n. 582. The ing, coverage but UM statute remains uninsured motorist insurance Maryland’s the victim receives workers’ same even when Statute, with the workers’ benefits: “The UM *13 offset, in or designed place position is to the insured the he liability she would have had the tortfeasor had occupied in equal coverage.” insurance an amount to the insured’s UM Id. at 424.
Mr. to Janquitto gives following hypothetical illustrate the correct result when the workers’ lien has compensation been paid pursuant satisfied out of the amount to the tortfea- sor’s id. at 424-25: liability policy,
The An following hypothetical illustrates this situation: injured is seriously working. damages insured while His $100,000. $20,000 exceed The insured has collected in work- ers’ The tortfeasor has a that compensation. liability policy $50,000 provides coverage. of The insured has a motor $100,000 vehicle The policy provides coverage. of UM an of policy compensation allows offset workers’ benefits $50,000 received the insured. The insured collects the from the tortfeasor’s insurer and liability satisfies work- ers’ insurer’s interest subrogation by repay- $20,000. ing $50,000 then seeks from his insure[d] insurer, or her UM which claims that its and the policy UM Statute allow for a reduction of workers’ compensation this, benefits. From the UM insurer takes the position $30,000 ($100,000 it owes limit uninsured motorist minus $50,000 $20,000 from the tortfeasor minus of workers’ com- pensation). position This is untenable of spirit because the UM Statute would be violated if the UM insurer were allowed to take the offset. Again, analysis must focus on what the insured would have received had he or she been injured $100,000 aby liability tortfeasor with coverage. $100,000 The answer is that the insured would have netted ($20,000 $100,000 workers’ plus $20,000 liability coverage minus pay back workers’ compensation).
The extra wrinkle that is presented by Blackburn’s case that the carrier—more precisely, Labor, United Department acting States pursuant Federal an Employees’ Compensation Act—accepted amount less than the total benefits such lesser paid, accepted right of its seek reimbursement
amount in full satisfaction that, argued to Blackburn. Erie under any amounts *14 19-513(e), to reduce to its liability it was entitled its UM of the workers’ by compensation the entire amount insured over the amount which to Blackburn and above paid lien, notwithstanding in full satisfaction of the paid Blackburn carrier has waived compensation the fact that the workers’ So, for reimbursement of benefits. even any further claim no further reimbursement Blackburn owes though it Erie claims that is still compensation provider, workers’ by its underinsured motorist benefit entitled to reduce waived compensation provider amount for which the workers’ The Erie’s majority opinion adopts position reimbursement. accident, is that the victim of the auto as correct. result Blackburn, damages with for which up uncompensated ends motorist carrier escapes responsibility, his own underinsured outstanding even there is no balance for which though provider any seeks further reimburse- compensation ment. not the insured in as a place good position
This result does have if the tortfeasor had maintained occupied as he would $250,000. in limits of Under a scenario which policy similar $250,000, driver maintained limits of negligent policy $246,305.66 have received from the workers’ Blackburn would and he would have received the compensation provider, carrier, $250,000 limits from the tortfeasor’s insurance policy he would have had to reimburse the workers’ out of which $27,396.28 lien.6 The net provider satisfy its $468,909.38 (i.e., have been recovery to Blackburn would $250,000 $27,396.28). $150,000 $246,305.66 minus That is plus majority opinion the amount the holds that Black- more than (which $318,909, was upon burn is entitled to based Department required Although possible it of Labor would have $27,396.28 greater accepted than the it in reimbursement in an amount policy full of its lien if it had known that the tortfeasor's satisfaction record, $250,000, we have in the limits were no evidence of that assume, purposes, for current the lien could have been must compromised the same amount as it case. for this carrier, $246,805.66 plus from the workers’ $100,000 carrier, minus the from the tortfeasor’s insurance $27,896.28 satisfy the lien of workers’ carrier). cannot be justified by
The difference these results avoiding consideration of double the acci- policy recovery It is in this case that agreed dent victim. Blackburn’s dam- in either ages fully compensated would not be event. There would no double Blackburn under either recovery be scenario. Lynne Parry,
The recent Court of decision in Appeals Representative Parry, Personal the Estate Mark De- Company, ceased v. Allstate Insurance 968 A.2d *15 (2009), view. The my Parry gave does not alter ease no compensation indication that the workers’ carrier’s right in that matter had been by compro- reimbursement satisfied Indeed, mise. case indicates in footnote 6 that the Parry Appeals Court of did not consider reimbursement limita- 19-513(e) § tion in pertinent to be to the issues there under consideration. 19-513(e) amended, § recently
When was most Chapter of the Laws of 2001 specifically stated that the General “limiting Assembly’s “purpose” was the reductions available to personal injury protection and uninsured motorist insurers compensation to the extent the workers’ insurer is able to paid recover benefits under the workers’ laws added.) of a state or the federal government.” (Emphasis We do not need to any resort to aids to statutory construction to divine the General Assembly’s intent. The legislature’s intent is stated in the explicitly enactment itself. And that expressed purpose is to limit the may be taken offset an uninsured motorist insurer to the extent that the workers’ added) insurer “is able recover” (emphasis the benefits that have been paid. § limitation in 19- 513(e), amended, should be read in a manner with consistent that stated purpose. upon Blackburn made his claim at all times since
Plainly, benefits, the lien had motorist because Erie for underinsured satisfied, Blackburn’s the amount which already fully been insurer “is able to recover” for benefits extent” that should have been “the is zero dollars. And compensa- available to Erie for the workers’ of the reduction 19-513(e). A contrary under construction tion offset $150,000 to Blackburn’s nearly results in a windfall of statute that re- motorist insurance carrier. I consider underinsured I and untenable. contrary legislature’s sult reverse. would
971A.2d 379 Joseph ELLIS v. Maryland. STATE of 637, Sept. Term, No. 2008. Special Appeals Maryland. Court of
May