Preview:

Headnote: David Webster, et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., No. 6294, September Term, 1998.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY THAT PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS THAT AN INSURED IS "LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER AS DAMAGES FROM THE OWNER OR DRIVER OF AN INSURED VEHICLE" DOES NOT PROVIDE LESS COVERAGE THAN MARYLAND LAW REQUIRES. A CARJACKER WHO WAS NEITHER PHYSICALLY INSIDE NOR IN CONTROL OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES DURING CARJACKING ATTEMPT OF AN UNINSURED VEHICLE IS NOT AN "OPERATOR" OF THE VEHICLE FOR PURPOSES OF MARYLAND'S UNINSURED MOTORIST STATUTE. FOR PURPOSES OF MARYLAND'S UNINSURED MOTORIST STATUTE, INJURIES OR DEATH RESULTING FROM A CARJACKING OR ATTEMPTED CARJACKING OF AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT "ARISE OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE, OR USE OF THE UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE," BUT RATHER AN ASSAULT, WHEN THE CARJACKER WAS NEITHER PHYSICALLY INSIDE NOR IN CONTROL OF ANY VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES DURING CARJACKING ATTEMPT.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 6294 September Term, 1998 ___________________________________

DAVID WEBSTER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CATHERINE ELIZABETH WEBSTER, et al.

v.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.

___________________________________

Moylan, Sonner, Bollinger, Thomas J., (specially assigned) JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Sonner, J. ___________________________________

Filed: December 2, 1999

3

This case is a civil appeal that followed the tragic murder of Catherine attempted Webster's Elizabeth carjacking parents, Webster of an by William D. Stewart during an

uninsured suit

vehicle.

Appellants, Employees

brought

against

Government

Insurance Company (GEICO), appellee, under their car insurance policy's uninsured motorist provision. The Circuit Court for We

Prince George's County granted summary judgment to GEICO.1 affirm.

On the evening of March 20, 1995, Robert Beauchamp Saunders2 and Larry LaPrad, Jr. talked Webster, who was 16 years old, into going to a pool hall without her parents' knowledge or permission. Saunders was driving his uninsured 1988 Nissan 300 ZX automobile.3 LaPrad sat in the front passenger seat and Webster sat in the rear of the car. was closed. When they arrived at the pool hall, they discovered it While still in the car in the parking lot, the

carjacker, Stewart, ordered them out of the vehicle and showed them a handgun tucked in the waistband of his trousers. Saunders

accelerated in an attempt to escape while Stewart fired his gun. One bullet only grazed Saunders, but two bullets hit Webster in the back of the head. She died the following day.

Stewart has been found guilty of carjacking, first degree murder, and other charges and received a sentence of life

1 2 3

There is no lower court opinion. The Complaint incorrectly refers to Richard Saunders.

Although the record is unclear regarding whether Saunders's vehicle was uninsured, GEICO stipulated that the car was uninsured during oral argument.

imprisonment plus thirty years.4

Webster's parents sued Saunders

and LaPrad for negligence in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The court dismissed the case, finding that the defendants

had no legal duty to protect the decedent from a third party's criminal actions. decision. Webster's parents then sued their own insurance company, GEICO, when it refused to compensate them under its uninsured motorist provision. After the circuit court granted summary Webster's parents did not appeal from that

judgment to GEICO, the parents noted this appeal and contend that the lower court erred because appellee's motion for summary

judgment did not address all aspects of appellants' Complaint. Specifically, appellants contend that two issues were not addressed in the summary judgment motion and, therefore, the entire case should not have been dismissed. First, appellants alleged that

GEICO's uninsured motorist provision was void because it provides less coverage than Maryland law requires. Second, appellants argue

that appellee's motion addressed only Saunders's involvement in Webster's death, without considering Stewart's wrongful acts. They

argue that the uninsured motorist provision applies because of the wrongful actions of both Stewart and Saunders, not just Saunders alone.

record in this case does not indicate the trial date or the court in which Stewart was tried and convicted of these charges.

4

2

Regarding the first issue, appellants contend that GEICO inserted the phrase, "legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or driver of an insured vehicle,"5 to provide less coverage than required by Maryland law. Specifically, appellants

state that the applicable Maryland statute includes compensation to innocent victims of automobile mishaps as well as for wrongful death claims. Appellants claim that GEICO's insurance policy does

not indicate coverage for either. We agree with appellants that an insurer may not provide less than the statutorily required minimum coverage. Nationwide Mutual

Insurance Company v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 314 Md. 131, 135, 550 A.2d 69 (1988); Harris v. Nationwide, 117 Md. App. 1, 5, 699 A.2d 447 (1997). Here, however, GEICO's insurance policy GEICO's

mirrors that of the applicable statute almost identically. policy states: We will pay damages for bodily injury and property damage caused by accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that vehicle.

GEICO Family Automobile Ins. Pol'y, at 17 (emphasis added). The relevant portion of Maryland Uninsured Motorist Coverage statute states:

Appellants incorrectly quote GEICO's policy. As noted below, GEICO's policy actually states, "legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle."

5

3

(c) Coverage required. - In addition to any other coverage required by this subtitle, each motor vehicle liability insurance policy issued, sold, or delivered in the State after July 1, 1975, shall contain coverage for damages, subject to the policy limits, that: (1) the insured is entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.... MD. CODE (1997), INSURANCE

Download Webster v. Geico.pdf

Maryland Law