Preview:

Taylor F. Wilson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company No. 22, September Term, 2006

HEAD NOTE : The Court of Special Appea ls was correct in reversing the C ircuit Court for Carroll County's decision that the fellow employee exclusion contained within an automobile liability insurance policy is invalid. We hold that a business auto insurance policy that contains a fellow employee exclusion is invalid to the extent that it provides less than the minimum statutory liability coverage. The fellow employee exclusion is a valid and enforcea ble contractual provision as to co verage above the minimum statutory liability limits of M aryland's comp ulsory au tomob ile insura nce law .

In the Circu it Court for C arroll Coun ty Case No. 06-C-04-040053

IN THE COURT OF A PPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 22 September Term, 2006 __________________________________ TAYLOR F. WILSON

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY __________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Greene, J. Bell , C.J. dissents. __________________________________ Filed: November 14, 2006

On June 20, 2002, petitioner, Taylor F. Wilson ("Wilson"), suffered serious injuries as a result of an auto collision that occu rred while he was the front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Daniel Richard McFarland ("McFarland"). At the time of the accident, both the driver and passenger were acting within the scope of their employment with Allegheny Industries, Inc. ("Allegheny"). Wilson f iled a Complaint for D eclaratory

Judgment against McFarland, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide"), and his employer, A llegheny, in the C ircuit Court f or Carr oll Cou nty. Wilson requested that the Circuit Court declare the rights and liabilities of the parties, with respect to the bodily injuries in the collision of June 20, 2002, under a Nationwide business automobile liability insurance policy issued to A llegheny. In that re gard, Wilso n sought a declaration th at the fellow employee exclusion in Nationwide's business automobile liability insurance policy was invalid. Motions for summ ary judgm ent we re filed. The trial court heard argument on the motions and gra nted W ilson's m otion fo r summ ary judgm ent, declaring that the fellow employee exclusion w as invalid. N ationwide noted an a ppeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the ruling of the Circuit Co urt for Car roll Cou nty. Nationw ide v. Wilson , 167 Md. A pp. 527, 893 A . 2d 1177 (2006 ). Thereafter, Wilson filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the judgment of the Court of Special A ppeals and posing the following question: Is a `fellow employee' exclusion contained in a commercial automob ile liability policy valid, enforcea ble and in accord w ith established Maryland public policy where such exclusion operates to limit coverage available under such policy to statutory compuls ory minimum amounts where the policy purchased reflected lim its substantially higher than such

minimum amounts? Nationwide filed its cross-petition for certiorari presenting the following question: Whether, the `fellow employee' exclusion contained in Nationwide's Autom obile Insurance Policy which limits coverage to the statutory minimum for injuries to fellow em ployees is permitted by Maryland's financial responsibility law,

Download Wilson v. Nationwide.pdf

Maryland Law