Preview:

The State of Maryland Central Collection Unit (CCU), the appellant, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County seeking payment for workers' compensation insurance premiums allegedly owed by DLD Associates Limited Partnership (DLD), the appellee, to the Injured Workers' Insurance Fund (IWIF). The trial

court granted DLD's motion to dismiss the complaint, and this appeal ensued. The trial court did not specify what grounds argued

by DLD formed the basis for its decision to grant DLD's Motion to Dismiss, and therefore, this Court must address the following questions: 1. Did the trial court err in finding that the Injured Worker's Insurance Fund is not an instrumentality of the State of Maryland for the purposes of the statute of limitations? If IWIF is an instrumentality of the State, did the trial court err in finding that the Legislature has waived its sovereign immunity as to the statute of limitations on written contracts? Did the trial court err in finding that the State of Maryland Central Collection Unit was not the real party in interest? Factual Background On or about February 25, 1991, DLD applied for a workers' compensation insurance policy with IWIF. The coverage was

2.

3.

effective on January 1, 1991, and coverage ceased on July 27, 1991, when the policy was cancelled. CCU alleges that at the time the On

policy was cancelled by IWIF, DLD continued to owe a balance.

- 2 May 11, 1992, a letter was sent by the Office of the Attorney General instructing DLD that it owed $25,117.27 to IWIF, and that if that sum were not paid within five days, the account would be turned over to CCU for further action. On September 29, 1995, CCU filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County seeking to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums, in the amount of $25,117.27, and collection/attorney fees in the amount of $4,280.14, allegedly owed by DLD to IWIF. CCU contended that, as the statutory assignee of On October 25, 1995,

IWIF, it was entitled to bring this action.

DLD filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that (1) IWIF is not a state agency, and as such, the three-year statute of limitations would apply and would time bar CCU's complaint, (2) even if IWIF is a state agency, sovereign immunity has been waived as to the statute of limitations involving contracts, and thus, CCU's complaint is still time-barred, and (3) CCU is not the real party in interest. The trial court, thereafter, entered an order granting DLD's

motion. I. IWIF AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS This Court is once again asked to revisit the issue of sovereign immunity. As has been oft repeated,

[t]he doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit, rooted in the ancient common law, is firmly embedded in the law of Maryland.

- 3 Although originally based on the tenet that "the King can do no wrong," the doctrine is presently viewed as a rule of policy which protects the State from burdensome interference with its governmental functions and preserves its control over State agencies and funds. Katz v. Washington Sub. San. Comm'n, 284 Md. 503, 507, 397 A.2d 1027, 1030 (1979) (citations omitted). Sovereign immunity is not

only applicable to the State itself, but also to its agencies and instrumentalities, unless the Legislature has waived immunity

directly or by necessary implication.

Godwin v. County Comm'rs,

256 Md. 326, 334, 260 A.2d 295, 299 (1970); Katz, 284 Md. at 50708, 397 A.2d at 1030. Thus, whether IWIF enjoys sovereign immunity Is IWIF an agency or

hinges on the answer to the question: instrumentality of the State?

The importance of the answer to this

question lies in the fact that neither "the statute of limitations nor laches applies to the State when it sues in its sovereign capacity in its own courts." Cent. Collection v. Gettes, 321 Md. Therefore, if this question absent a finding that

671, 675, 584 A.2d 689, 691 (1991). yields an answer in the

affirmative,

sovereign immunity has been waived by the Legislature, DLD will not be permitted to raise the statute of limitations defense. "[T]here is no single test for determining whether a

statutorily-established entity is an agency or instrumentality of the State for a particular purpose. All aspects of the

interrelationship between the State and the statutorily-established entity must be examined in order to determine its status." A.S.

- 4 Abell Pub. Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 35, 464 A.2d 1068, 1072 (1983). See also, O & B, Inc. v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. P & P, 279 Md. The appellee stresses to this

459, 462, 369 A.2d 553, 555 (1977).

Court, however, that the Legislature has taken the "guess-work" out of the process of determining IWIF's status. The appellee argues

that Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Emp.

Download Central Collection v. DLD.pdf

Maryland Law