Speakman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

MacD aniel, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On or about March 6, 1977, Donald L. Speakman, the appellant, while operating his motorcycle in Florida, was struck by an automobile. As a result of the accident, the appellant incurred hospital and medical bills and loss of income. At the time of the accident, the appellant was the named insured in an automobile liability policy of insurance which provides for $10,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. ⁶⁶⁷ The appellant brought suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against the appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeking recovery of $10,000 in PIP coverage.

The appellant and the appellee filed a joint stipulation of facts and cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial judge denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the appellee. The appellant contests that ruling. The appellant’s automobile insurance policy included the following proviso with respect to PIP coverage: “THIS INSURANCE DOES NOT APPLY UNDER: (j) COVERAGE P TO ANY PERSON WHO: (4) SUSTAINS BODILY INJURY ARISING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE OR USE OF A MOTOR CYCLE OR MINI BIKE;____” The issue is whether under the Maryland Insurance Code, the appellee could legally make such an exclusion.

Article 48A, § 539 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, provides, in part: “(a) No policy of motor vehicle liability insurance shall be issued, sold or delivered in this State after January 1, 1973, unless the policy also affords the minimum medical, hospital and disability benefits set forth herein; or unless equivalent medical, hospital, and disability benefits are provided by a policy issued to the insured by a nonprofit health service plan or by an authorized insurer with the policy in each case subject to approval by the Commissioner. The benefits, or their equivalent, shall cover the named insured and members of his family residing in his household (except such persons as may be specifically excluded in accordance with § 240C-1 of this article) injured in any motor vehicle accident (including an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle or a motor vehicle whose identity cannot be ⁶⁶⁸ ascertained), other persons injured while occupying the insured motor vehicle as a guest or passenger, or while using it with the express or implied permission of the named insured (except as provided in § 240C-1 of this article), and pedestrians injured in an accident in which the insured motor vehicle is involved or individuals injured in, on, or alighting from any other vehicle operated by animal or muscular power in an accident in which an insured vehicle is involved.” Section 545 allows the following possible exclusion from the above coverage: “The coverages prescribed under § 539 of this article may exclude from benefits thereunder any person otherwise insured under the policy who: (d) With respect to motorcycles, economic loss benefits required under § 539 may be excluded, or may be offered with deductibles, options or with specific exclusions.” The appellant concedes that his motorcycle insurance policy legitimately excluded PIP coverage, but he argues that under the above provisions of the Maryland Insurance Code an automobile insurance policy may not exclude PIP coverage for an accident involving a motorcycle ridden by the insured party and another automobile. In addressing the appellant’s arguments, the lower court said: “As in most statutory construction cases in Maryland, there is no legislative history to indicate the intention of the Legislature. All that can be determined from a study of the statute as