Rafferty v. Allstate Insurance

COUCH, Judge. On January 9, 1982, Maureen Rafferty was killed in an automobile collision caused by an uninsured motorist. Ms. Rafferty was a passenger in an automobile driven by Laura Berg and insured by State Farm; her estate sought recovery of uninsured motorists insurance proceeds from the driver’s insurer and from Maureen’s own insurer. The issue before us is whether, under these facts, the Insurance Code, Md.Ann.Code (1957, 1979 Repl.Vol.), Art. 48A, § 543(a), 1 bars any recovery from Allstate Insurance Company, Maureen’s insurer.

We hold that it does. The State Farm policy provided uninsured motorist coverage up to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. After some negotiation, State Farm split the proceeds of the policy equally between Ms. Rafferty’s estate and the estates of the two other women killed in the collision. Ms. Rafferty’s estate thus collected $33,333.33 from State Farm.

In addition, Ms. Rafferty was insured under the uninsured motorist provision of a policy issued by Allstate ⁶⁶ Insurance Company (Allstate) to her father, James Rafferty. Three automobiles were covered under this policy, and for his uninsured motorist coverage Mr. Rafferty paid a premium of $4.40 per car. In turn he received the statutory mínimums of uninsured motorist coverage—$20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. See Md.Ann.Code (1957, 1979 Repl.Vol., 1984 Cum.Supp.), Art. 48A, § 541(c)(2), and Md. Code (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol.), Transportation Article, § 17-103(b)(1).

Ms. Rafferty’s estate seeks recovery under this policy, claiming that the statutory minimum of $20,000 per person applies to each car and should be added together, thereby giving her estate $60,000 uninsured motorist coverage. This $60,000 would be set off by the $33,333.33 recovered from State Farm, and Ms. Rafferty’s estate would then recover $26,666.67 from Allstate. 2 Ms. Rafferty’s estate first presented this excess coverage claim to Allstate and it denied coverage. The estate then brought a declaratory judgment action against Allstate in Montgomery County Circuit Court. Judge Miller granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment and the estate appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.

While the appeal was pending, the estate filed a petition for certiorari and Allstate filed a cross-petition. We granted both certiorari petitions. The questions raised on certiorari by Ms. Rafferty’s estate are: “I. Whether § 543(a) of Title 48A of the Annotated Code of Maryland applies at all to the appellant’s claim for relief insofar as § 543(a) applies only to supplemental ⁶⁷ payments ‘from more than one motor vehicle policy’ and appellant’s claim seeks payments from only one policy?

II

Assuming that § 543(a) of Title 48A of the Annotated Code of Maryland does apply to the appellant’s claim for relief, is the payment sought by plaintiff ‘supplemental’ within the meaning of § 543(a)?” Allstate posed a single, albeit lengthy, question: “I. Does the decision of this Court in Yarmuth, et al., v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 286 Md. 256 , 407 A.2d 315 (1979), effectively overrule the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in Langston, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 40 Md.App. 414 , 392 A.2d 561 (1978), as to the correct interpretation of the statutory language, i.e., ‘supplemental’ and ‘duplicative’, of Section 543(a) of Article 48A of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1979 Replacement Volume, and, therefore, prohibit the adding or ‘stacking’ of insurance coverage [under more than one policy of insurance] for damages arising out of the same occurrence?” 3 We believe the issue is more simply stated: Does § 543(a) of the Insurance Code prohibit recovery under more than one insurance policy of uninsured motorist benefits in excess of the statutory minimums. Inasmuch as we hold that it does, we need not address the issue (raised by the estate) of whether the $20,000 coverage on each car may be added together. We begin by reviewing the two decisions by this Court in which § 543(a) has been discussed. The first decision is Travelers Ins.

Co. v. Benton, 278 Md. 542 , 365 A.2d 1000 (1976). In Benton , the insured, Ms. Benton, was a passenger who was riding in an automobile owned and operated by Henry Leland. Mr. Leland was insured by the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). Ms. Benton claimed Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits from MAIF and ⁶⁸ received the policy limits of $2,500.

Id. at 543-44 , 365 A.2d at 1002 . Ms. Benton’s medical bills were in excess of $5,000, so she sought to recover another $2,500 in PIP benefits under her own policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company. We held her recovery was barred by § 543(a). We said: “The coordination of benefits provision contained in § 543(a) specifies that recovery shall be under one, but not both policies; it says in no uncertain terms that no person shall recover PIP benefits ‘from more than one motor vehicle liability policy or insurer on either a duplicative or supplemental basis.’ ” Id. at 545-46, 365 A.2d at 1003 .

In Yarmuth v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 286 Md. 256 , 407 A.2d 315 (1979), we addressed two questions of law certified by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Question No. 2 directly concerned section 543(a): “(2) Does § 543(a) of Art. 48A, Ann.Code of Md., prohibit the recovery by an insured of uninsured motorist benefits under one policy where the insured’s claim admittedly exceeds $40,000 and where the insured has already recovered the sum of $40,000 under the uninsured motorist coverage of another insurance policy?” 4 The facts of Yarmuth indicate that Albert, Elizabeth, and Jay Starr, three of the four Starr family members, were killed in a collision with a tractor trailer operated by Fred Kile, an uninsured motorist. Albert Starr, the father, had uninsured motorist benefits with Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) of up to $20,000 per person and up to $40,000 per accident, the statutory minimum.

Id. at 258-59, 407 A.2d at 316 . ⁶⁹ Starr’s employer owned and insured the vehicle Starr was operating at the time of the collision. The employer’s insurance coverage limits were the same statutory minimum as those of Starr’s GEICO policy. Id. The Starr family estate and the guardian of the surviving Starr family member recovered the $40,000 policy limit from Zurich Group Insurance Companies, the employer’s insurer, and then attempted to recover the $40,000 policy limit from Mr. Starr’s insurer, GEICO.

Id. at 259 , 407 A.2d at 317 . We held there could be no recovery over and above the $40,000 recovery from Zurich. In so doing, we applied the principles of Benton , “because § 543(a) expressly governs the recovery of both PIP [as in Benton ] and uninsured motorist [as in Yarmuth ] benefits.” Id. at 264 , 407 A.2d at 319 . We noted that in Benton , “[w]e observed that the coordination of benefits provisions contained in § 543(a) specified that recovery shall be under one, but