Maryland Injury Lawyers Blog

Our firm handles injury claims and lawsuits against Maryland Live! Casino which is located in Arundel Mills, in Hanover Maryland. The casio recently opened its doors to the public, and there will surely be a lot of legal claims against Maryland Live. This is because safety policies and procedures have not been in place for any significant period of time. Claims related to card dealer mistakes and improper casino payments are also likely because Maryland Live card dealers are not experienced card dealers for the most part, and are still learning their craft.

If you are injured at a Maryland Casino call us at 888-213-8140.

Claims against the casino can involve personal injuries that occur at the casino (or the Maryland Live parking lots), and other claims involving gambling losses and Maryland Live!'s failure to pay out on money owed. If you are injured at a Maryland Casino it is important to talk to an attorney that understands potential legal issues involved.

One issue to consider is whether an injury or death claim against a Maryland Casino such as Maryland Live! are actually claims against the State of Maryland. The Casino is regulated by the State and receives State Funding, but it is run by private investors,and is likely owned by "PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC" which is located in Baltimore, Maryland. Nobody knows hte answer to this question yet because it has not been litigated. To be safe, it is a good idea to give notice to the State of Maryland pursuant to the State Tort Claims Act and also to give notice to the appropriate local government pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act. According to the State Department of Assesment and Taxation Website, there are at least 3 legal entities with the name Maryland Live in it: "Maryland Live" "Maryland Live! Casino" "Maryland Live Holdings, LLC" and "Maryland Live Holdings Equity Investor, LLC"

Remember Mr. Yuck? Well, Poison Control Centers are now tracking reports of calls related to energy drink exposures, and the 2012 data is disturbing.

Poison Control Centers in the USA apparently received 3,147 reports of exposures to energy drinks, and that well over half of those reports were for children 18 and younger. This data was compiled by the National Poison Data System which is the only comprehensive poisoning exposure surveillance database in the USA. This data, coupled with the numerous adverse event reports that the Food and Drug Administration has received related to energy drinks is convincing! Energy Drinks are dangerous and can cause serious injuries or death for certain individuals---In particular, anyone with an underlying heart condition should not drink any energy drinks at all.

Poison Control Centers throughout the United States are telling people to use caution and common sense when consuming Energy Drinks and related products. The American Association of Poison Control Centers Website Reports that

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that "caffeine and other stimulant substances contained in energy drinks have no place in the diets of children and adolescents."

If you are concerned that you are having an adverse reaction after consuming an energy drink such as Monster Energy Drink, Red Bull, Rock Star or 5 Hour Energy, then you should seek medical attention immediately. The Poison Control Center's cautionary alert on energy drinks indicates that drinking too many energy drinks or drinking them too fast can cause increased heart rate, altered heart rhythm, chest pain, dehydration, seizures, kidney problems, increased blood pressure, mood changes and other symptoms. You can also report the Energy Drink Injury Incident to the Poison Control Center by calling 1-800-222-1222.

If you want to learn more about the dangers of energy drinks, visit the Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC Website at www.gfmjustice.com.

At Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC we know that after you have been in a car accident it is a very stressful time. In addition to having to recover from physical injuries, back pain, neck pain and whiplash, car crash victims have often lost their only means of transportation. Our personal injury law firm will do what we can to help you and your family through this difficult time. As a courtesy to our clients we are available to help resolve property damage issues, and in most cases there is no attorney fee at all for this.

Car accidents also often cause people to miss time from work. We will fight hard to recover your lost wages. Many people think that if they were paid for the time that they miss, then they do not have a lost wage claim. Generally speaking, if you miss time from work---even if you are paid for the time missed--you can make a claim for "lost wages" because in fact you are either losing wages or losing leave time. This legal concept is based on the "collateral source rule" which basically means that the person whose negligence caused the accident cannot benefit from the fact that one's employer gave them an employee benefit such as paid time off, paid leave or vacation time.

We recently received favorable feedback from one of our clients and we wanted to share this.

Attention to our friends in Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia---- There have been 6 crashes in the last 72 hours at the entrance to northbound 495 between the Springfield Interchange and Braddock Road. The Washington Beltway (I-495) recently added several new express lane entrances to northbound 495, and as a result of this new roadway condition drivers are confused and making mistakes. You must have an EZ Pass to use the new express lanes. Apparently drivers are realizing that they need an EZ Pass, and then making abrupt lane changes and this is causing the accidents (Frankly, the roadway is not marked very well). PLEASE BE CAREFUL!

To address this problem the lane markings have been extended and crews are planning to add roadway markings as far out as a mile before the express lanes warning of the need for an EZ Pass in the left lanes.

The 6 crashes all occurred adjacent to the northbound express lanes near the Springfield Interchange and Braddock Road.

Anyone injured as a result of these new roadway markings should consider contacting a lawyer. We provide free telephone consultations to accident victims and there is no attorney fee unless we make a recovery for you.

This roadway project was undertaken by Virginia Transportation Department and two private companies named Transurban and Fluor. They say that the new design is to decrease congestion, but in my opinion it was done just to make more money off of the toll roads.

Call us at 301-589-2999 if you are involved in a car crash want a free phone consultation about your rights and what you should and should not do.

Many of the cases we handle involve an insured having to sue their own insurance company for benefits owed. These claims are technically breach of contract claims, and they can become very complicated. This week the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion in Buckley v. The Brethren, and the opinion is favorable to Maryland consumers who purchase car insurance.

In this case, the car insurance company, The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company, tried to pull a fast one on its own insured and wiggle out of paying benefits owed. You see, the handling of an uninsured motorist claim in Maryland is complicated, and generally is based on statutes including Section 19-511 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code.

To make a long story short, Ms. Ember Buckley was seriously injured as a passenger in a car crash in March 2007 and she incurred over $100,000.00 in medical bills. The crash was caused by Mr. Harvey Betts who owned and drove the car that Buckley was a passenger in. Mr. Betts vehicle had just $100,000.00 of liability coverage, and was covered by Geico Insurance Company. Ms. Buckley had her own car insurance policy in which she paid a premium for up to $300,000.00 in uninsured motorist benefits (also known as underinsured motorist benefits). Ms. Buckley's $300,000.00 policy was with The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company. Geico made a settlement offer of its insured's $100,000.00 policy limit in exchange for a release. As they are required to do, GEICO sent the policy limits offer in writing, but GEICO asked for a full and general release.

In the State of Maryland, uninsured motorist claims are goverened by Section 19-511 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code. The law allows an injured person to accept a policy limits settlement offer from a liability carrier so long as the written offer is sent to the uninsured motorist carrier by certified mail pursuant to the statutue. The UM Carrier then has 60 days to consent to the acceptance of the policy limits offer (and allow for the injured person to execute a release), or to refuse to consent to the acceptance of the offer, but then to pay the amount of the offer to the injured person within 30 days of the refusal to consent. If the UM carrier consents to the acceptance of the offer (and presumably to the signing of a Release) then the UM Carrier waives its subrogation rights against the at fault party. If the Uninsured Motorist Insurer refuses to consent to the settlement, then the UM Carrier must pay the injured party the amount of the settlement, but its subrogation rights would be preserved (Because there would be no release).

In this case Ms. Buckley's lawyer sent Brethren Mutual the policy limits settlement offer by certified mail as required by the statute, and Brethren's insurance adjuster sent a letter back statuign that they waived subrogation against Mr. Betts. Ms. Buckley then accepted the settlement offer from GEICO but signed a very broad general release that in and of it self, at least arguably, released the UM claim.

When Ms. Betts presented her uninsured motorist claim to The Brethren Insurance Company, Brethren's adjuster denied the claim based on the broad language in the release signed by Ms. Betts. What is disturbing is that Brethren knew that it owed uninsured motorist benefits in this case, and took a ridiculous position in order to save money. The Brethren admitted that it had consented to the settlement, but then argued that it nevertheless could lawfully deny the uninsured motorist claim because of the language in the release. This is a great example of how generally speaking insurance companies look out for their own bottom line and are not looking out for their insureds.

In any event, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Betts and against the insurance company. The Court held that so long as the Circuit Court agrees that The Brethren consented to the settlement, the uninsured motorist benefits were owed and that the only issue for trial was the amount of damages owed to Ms. Buckley. (It should be noted that Judge Eyler filed a dissenting opinion).

Many of the cases we handle involve an insured having to sue their own insurance company for benefits owed. These claims are technically breach of contract claims, and they can become very complicated. Perhaps the most common type of claim we handle in this area is claims for uninsured motorist benefits. This week the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion in Buckley v. The Brethren, and the opinion is favorable to Maryland consumers who purchase car insurance, and make a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

In this case, the car insurance company, The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company, tried to pull a fast one on its own insured and wiggle out of paying benefits it clearly owed. You see, the handling of an uninsured motorist claim in Maryland is complicated, and generally is based on statutes including Section 19-511 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code.

To make a long story short, Ms. Ember Buckley was seriously injured as a passenger in a car crash in March 2007 and she incurred over $100,000.00 in medical bills. The crash was caused by Mr. Harvey Betts who owned and drove the car that Buckley was a passenger in. Mr. Betts vehicle had just $100,000.00 of liability coverage, and was covered by Geico Insurance Company. Ms. Buckley had her own car insurance policy in which she paid a premium for up to $300,000.00 in uninsured motorist benefits (also known as underinsured motorist benefits). Ms. Buckley's $300,000.00 policy was with The Brethren Mutual Insurance Company. Geico made a settlement offer of its insured's $100,000.00 policy limit in exchange for a release. As they are required to do, GEICO sent the policy limits offer in writing, but GEICO asked for a full and general release.

In the State of Maryland, uninsured motorist claims are goverened by Section 19-511 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code. The law allows an injured person to accept a policy limits settlement offer from a liability carrier so long as the written offer is sent to the uninsured motorist carrier by certified mail pursuant to the statute. The UM Carrier then has 60 days to consent to the acceptance of the policy limits offer (and allow for the injured person to execute a release), or to refuse to consent to the acceptance of the offer, but then to pay the amount of the offer to the injured person within 30 days of the refusal to consent. If the UM carrier consents to the acceptance of the offer (and presumably to the signing of a Release) then the UM Carrier waives its subrogation rights against the at fault party. If the Uninsured Motorist Insurer refuses to consent to the settlement, then the UM Carrier must pay the injured party the amount of the settlement, but its subrogation rights would be preserved (Because there would be no release).

In this case Ms. Buckley's lawyer sent Brethren Mutual the policy limits settlement offer by certified mail as required by the statute, and Brethren's insurance adjuster sent a letter back stating that they waived subrogation against Mr. Betts. Ms. Buckley then accepted the settlement offer from GEICO but signed a very broad general release that in and of it self, at least arguably, released the UM claim.

When Ms. Betts presented her uninsured motorist claim to The Brethren Insurance Company, Brethren's adjuster denied the claim based on the broad language in the release signed by Ms. Betts. What is disturbing is that Brethren knew that it owed uninsured motorist benefits in this case, and took a ridiculous position in order to save money. The Brethren admitted that it had consented to the settlement, but then argued that it nevertheless could lawfully deny the uninsured motorist claim because of the language in the release. This is a great example of how generally speaking insurance companies look out for their own bottom line and are not looking out for their insureds.

In any event, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Betts and against the insurance company. The Court held that so long as the Circuit Court agrees that The Brethren consented to the settlement, the uninsured motorist benefits were owed and that the only issue for trial was the amount of damages owed to Ms. Buckley. (It should be noted that Judge Eyler filed a dissenting opinion).

Practice Pointer regarding Maryland Uninsured Motorist Claims----Be sure that the letter from the UM Carrier clearly consents to the settlement and signing of a release with the liability carrier. Also, carve out the UM claim in any release signed.

Friends-

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Elizabeth Colvin Colton who was killed in an accident that occurred last week in Montgomery County as a result of an improper left hand turn. Maryland drivers need to remember to yield the right of way to oncoming cars whenever making a left hand turn.

We are seeing a lot of very serious accidents resulting from improper and illegal left hand turns. It is important to remember that if you are making a left turn you must always yield the right of way to on-coming traffic before making your turn. It is also important to remember to use your turn signal. Way too often a driver will attempt to make a left turn in front of an oncoming vehicle thinking that they have plenty of space. Well, the fact is that not everyone drives the speed limit, and not all drivers are paying attention to what is ahead of them. It may look like the left turning vehicle has plenty of room to make the turn, but if the oncoming vehicle is speeding, and/or if the left turning driver's perception is off at all, a tragic collision can occur.

As a personal injury lawyer, I can tell you that in Maryland the driver of the left turning vehicle in this type of accident will practically always be found to be at fault. Occasionally the vehicle that had the right away may also be found at fault if it can be shown that vehicle was speeding or perhaps on a cell phone and texting and not paying attention, but this would be rare. Police investigating crash scenes will usually ticket the driver of the left turning vehicle. This is true even if the oncoming vehicle is speeding and not paying attention. Bottom line....if you are making a left turn, YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

Just this week there was a terrible crash on Great Seneca Highway near the Kentlands and Lakeland's community resulting from an improper left turn. A lady named Elizabeth Colvin Colton was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Seymour Baden. Apparently Mr. Baden attempted to make a left turn from Great Seneca Highway without yielding the right of way to oncoming traffic into the Lakelands neighborhood when he was struck by a vehicle driving on Great Seneca. Mr. Baden's passenger took the brunt of the impact and died as a result of her injuries.

Many of our clients are shocked when we tell them that the law in Maryland negligence cases is that if a person is even 1% at fault in an accident then they are barred from recovery. This is because Maryland is one of only four states in the entire country that has retained the common law pure contributory negligence standard. The other 3 states are Virginia, Washington, D.C., North Carolina and Alabama. Contributory negligence can lead to extremely harsh and unfair results, especially when it comes to children and the mentally ill. I feel strongly that contributory negligence is a harsh and antiquated doctrine that needs to be changed in Maryland. By contrast, in comparative negligence jurisdictions if a person is say 5 % at fault, then the jury verdict would simply be reduced by 5%. This seems to be a much more fair way of addressing negligence claims.

On Monday September 10, 2012 the Md. Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in a case that urges the court to adopt comparative negligence. The case is Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, and involves a person who was injured by a soccer goal that collapsed on him when he grabbed onto the crossbar. The case was tried by my friend and colleague Bruce Plaxen. The jury found that the defendant Soccer Association was negligent for failing to maintain the goal, but that Mr. Coleman was also contributorily negligent. Therefore, although Mr. Coleman was seriously injured, no damages were awarded to Mr. Coleman.

I have seen particularly harsh results in negligence cases based on premises liability such as slip and fall accidents. This is because in these cases, the defendant will always argue that our client was at least 1% at fault for failing to watch where they are going. If Maryland adopts comparative negligence it will encourage landlords and businesses to be more careful and avoid dangerous conditions that cause injuries.

The specific issue that the Court of Appeals will address is "Should this Court ameliorate or repudiate the doctrine of contributory negligence & replace it with a comparative negligence regime?" You can watch a webcast of the oral arguments at 10:00 am on Monday (there are 3 cases scheduled so it may not be starting right at 10 am).

Ever wonder if those releases that places like Maryland amusement parks, ski facilities (Wisp, Whitetail), and Bounce U make us sign before our kids can participate in activities are valid? Well, I have. In fact until last week, this was an unsettled issue in Maryland because there was no case law directly on point. We now know that a release signed by a parent is invalid as to claims relating to a child's injuries against a commercial for profit facility.

On August 30, 2012 the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued its opinion in Rosen v. BJ's Wholesalers. This court opinion, written by Judge Krauser, held that a release signed by a parent was invalid as to the child's injury claim against BJ's Wholesalers. In this case a 5 year old child was seriously injured while the kid was playing in the kids play area at BJ's Wholesalers. The agreement signed by the parent, in addition to setting forth rules for the use of the kids play club,

releases BJ's Wholesale from "any and all claims and causes of action" arising from the use of the play center by a member's child and requires a member to "indemnify, defend and hold harmless" BJ's Wholesale from any such claims or causes of action."

In a nutshell, the release agreement purportedly required that the parent and child give up the right to sue if the child was injured and it also had an indemnification clause in it which the Court also held invalid on public policy grounds. The child's parent sued BJ's on behalf of the minor child in Baltimore County Circuit Court, and the trial Court granted BJ's Motion for Summary Judgment based on the release that the parent had signed. The parent appealed this decision to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals noted that there was no prior case law on this exact issue in Maryland. The Court determined that BJ's, as a commercial for profit establishment, could not alleviate its responsibility for the child's injuries by having the parent sign a release. The Court noted that it was not deciding whether a negligence claim against the State of Maryland or a non-profit would turn out the same way. Instead, its holding is limited to the facts of this case where a child is injured at a commercial for profit facility.

I think that this is a great decision because it will encourage any facility for children to adopt careful safety measures and also to obtain liability insurance. It will also encourage these places to have adequate supervision when children are playing.

To see the entire opinion: Russel Rosen v. BJ's Wholesalers

Families of those who lose a loved one often want to know what the value is of the legal claims that can be brought against those responsible for the death. How in the world can anyone put a value on someone's life? Therefore, at the outset, I am reminded of some words of wisdom that one of Maryland's top mediators has occasionally bestowed upon my clients at mediations involving the death of a loved one:

"We are not putting a value of your son's life, we are discussing the value of this particular lawsuit. There is a big difference."

The bottom line truth is that the value of any death case based on negligence in Maryland is generally limited by Maryland's cap on non-economic damages plus any economic losses that can be established at trial.

In my opinion, the value of most wrongful death claims in Maryland is at least the applicable cap on damages plus any proven economic losses. Of course this value can change if liability is in dispute, if there is limited insurance coverage, or, in extremely rare circumstances if punitive damages can be established and collected.

A few things additional things to consider:

1. The value of wrongful death claims in Maryland is limited by tort reform. Maryland has a cap on non-economic damages. For personal injury cases such as car accidents and slip and falls, the cap is approximately $755,000.00 for any single claim, and the cap is about $1,132,500.0 for all wrongful death claims with 2 or more beneficiaries. Therefore, the amount that can be recovered in any wrongful death case is limited to economic losses sustained plus the cap.

In 2005 there was a special legislative session held, and additional tort reform was passed further limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases that result in death. For medical malpractice cases in Maryland, the cap on non-economic damages for claims arising after 1/1/12 is $710,000.00 for an individual claim, and $887,500.00 for all wrongful death claims.

2. Insurance Coverage. Often times, the value of a wrongful death claim is limited by the amount of insurance coverage the "at fault" party has. Hiring an experienced wrongful death lawyer is important because we are trained to try to identify additional theories of liability and additional defendants which can trigger additional insurance coverage. For more information about this, see an Article I wrote for other attorneys titled Not so Fast...Don't Accept A Low Policy Limits Settlement Offer For Your Catastrophically Injured Client. DOCKG Summer 08trialreparticle.pdf

3. When a person dies in Maryland, multiple claims arise. The estate of the person who dies can bring a survival action on behalf of the individual for funeral expenses, economic losses and pain and suffering that the decedent suffered between injury and death. This survival claim is brought by the Personal Representative of the Estate of the person who died. In addition to the survival claim, the spouse, children and parents of the deceased person each have an individual "wrongful death claim." These "Maryland Wrongful Death Claims" are statutory claims governed by Section 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code.

4. The statute of limitations for wrongful death cases in Maryland is 3 years from the date of death. There is a statutory exception to this rule is for "occupational disease" contracted in the workplace (e.g. asbestos cases). In those cases the statute of limitations can be extended to the shorter of 10 years from the date of death or within 3 years of the date when the cause of death was discovered. TO BE SAFE, ASSUME THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ANY MARYLAND WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM IN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DEATH.

5. Choice of Law Can Have A Huge Impact On Case Value. If a Maryland resident dies as a result of a wrongful act that occurs in another State, the Maryland Court will apply the law of that State. This is important because Maryland's neighboring States-Washington, D.C. and Virginia-do not have a cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases (note: Virginia does have a cap on damages in Medical Malpractice cases). A good wrongful death attorney can help determine whether there are any ways to get around Maryland's cap on non-economic damages by either filing in another state or getting the Maryland Courts to apply another state's substantive law.

6. Punitive Damages: It is nearly impossible to get punitive damages in a wrongful death case based on negligence in Maryland. Generally speaking, the only way to get punitive damages in Maryland is to prove that the act that caused the death was intentional. A problem can arise because once a lawyer establishes that the negligent act was intentional, the liability carrier may take the position that there is no insurance coverage. Unlike many other states, punitive damages are extremely rare in Maryland.

Conclusion: When a loved one dies as a result of someone else's negligence in Maryland, it is important to discuss the legal actions with a personal injury lawyer familiar with Maryland's wrongful death law. The value of wrongful death cases in Maryland is often limited by Maryland's cap on non-economic damages, and by limited insurance coverage. Our job, as Maryland personal injury lawyers, is to help the families of those who lose a loved one to maximize the damages that they recover.

The USDA Website announced on July 7, 2012 that NJ Company Buona VIta, Inc. is recalling over 324,000 pounds of frozen meat/chicken products because it may be contaminated with Listeria. If you or someone you love becomes sick or is injured because of food poisoning or contaminated food, our lawyers will give you a free telephone consultation to determine whether we can help you or not. Food poisoning lawsuits are generally brought as product liability claims. For more information about this particular beef recall due to possible food poisoning visit this USDA link/news announcement that "New Jersey Firm Recalls Various Frozen, Ready to Eat Meat and Pultry Products Due to Potential Listeria Monocytogenes Contamination."

The Washington Post has reported that A 2 year old foster child in Prince George's County, Maryland (Fort Washington area) was apparently beaten to death by a 12 year old boy. The child who was killed name is Aniyah Batchelor and her biological mother is Stephany Cunningham. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Stephany Cunningham, Aniyah's father and the other friends and family of Aniyah.

This is one of the saddest stories I have ever heard. When a parent has to place their child in foster care, it is the responsibility of the State/County Officials and the foster parents to make sure that the child is in a safe and supervised environment. The foster parents were apparently not home at the time of the incident. Did they really live a 2 year old child unsupervised?? This makes no sense. Sometimes, in my opinion, County officials and judges are too quick to remove children from their natural parents and place them with foster parents. Sometimes removal can occur because of a crazy circumstance or a single accident which, quite frankly, can happen anywhere. But when a child is placed in foster care, County Officials better be darn sure that the foster family is going to provide a safe and loving environment for the child.

Aniyah's biological parents should strongly consider hiring an attorney to investigate a civil lawsuit against county and state officials and possibly even the foster family. It is important that an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION be done, and that Aniyah's parents do not rely on State/County investigations because they could be biased in such a way so as to make it seem like County/State officials did nothing wrong. An attorney would likely advance the cost of any such investigation to get to the bottom of what happened here. Aniyah's biological parents also should know that there are strict notice deadlines for claims against counties, the state and local governments. Proper statutory notice would need to be given to the county/local governments within 180 days, and proper notice to the State within 1 year. These deadlines are in addition to the 3 year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims. Our law firm, Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC would take on a case like this on a contingent fee basis which means that there would be no attorney fee if there was no recovery, and our firm would advance the costs of the case. We can be reached at 888-213-8140.

Those who were responsible for this incident should be held accountable, and if this was not a proper foster care placement then those who dropped the ball should lose their job and face criminal charges for neglect.

The Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF) has two roles--the first is to provide insurance to people who are turned down by other insurance companies. The second, more important function is to provide basic insurance coverage when there is no other coverage available. This is known as Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment (UCJ). Here are two common scenarios:
Scenario 1: An uninsured driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian lawfully in the crosswalk. Because the driver didn't have insurance, the pedestrian may be able to make a claim through MAIF.
Scenario 2: An unknown driver cuts off an MTA bus, causing the bus to swerve into another vehicle. The negligent driver is never found. People injured on the bus may be eligible to make a claim through MAIF.
As you can see, a MAIF-UCJ claim can be made when the negligent driver's insurance cannot be found or does not exist. It may also apply where the other driver is from out-of-state, and has lower coverage than MAIF. Importantly, MAIF will not provide coverage where the injured person has available insurance, usually in the form of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage http://www.marylandinjurylawyersblog.com/2012/01/protect-your-family-before-a-m.html (which we recommend--MAIF has very low limits, and we see many people who have medical bills that far exceed the $20,000 minimum).
Amount of Coverage
MAIF provides a maximum of $20,000 per person, and $40,000 per accident for UCJ claims. There is currently a bill before the Maryland legislature to increase these minimums to $30,000/$60,000, which would put it in line with the minimum insurance coverage for Maryland drivers.
Preserving your Rights
UCJ claims are one situation (the other is a claim against a local, state or federal governmental entity) where the victim absolutely should not delay in seeking a Maryland auto accident lawyer. http://www.gfmlawllc.com/lawyer-attorney-1666190.html The reason is that there are strict deadlines governing notice to MAIF. A person who intends to make a MAIF claim usually must present very specific information to MAIF within 180 days (roughly six months) of the accident.
The MAIF-UCJ rules are located in MD. CODE ANN. INS. § 20-601, et seq. Here are some things that are typically required (specific requirements may vary from case to case):
• Proof that the claimant is not eligible for uninsured motorist benefits through his own policy or a policy issued to a family member in the claimant's household
• Certification by the claimant's employer of all lost wages up to the date of the notice
• Evidence of all medical expenses and medical reports up to the date of the notice
• All police or accident reports
Additionally, Maryland Rule 15-804 http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/ requires the claimant to request a stipulation from MAIF that the claimant fulfilled all of the procedural requirements before being allowed to file a lawsuit. If the claim is against an unknown ("phantom") driver, the claimant may file a lawsuit against MAIF directly. If the driver is known, the lawsuit must be filed against that driver only, and MAIF will then intervene in the lawsuit.
Contact Us
If you have been involved in a hit-and-run accident, or if you have been in an accident with an uninsured driver, contact our lawyers at 1.888.213.8140, or online http://www.gfmlawllc.com/lawyer-attorney-1662537.html. Remember--there are strict deadlines about MAIF UCJ claims. If those deadlines are not met, you can be forever barred from making a claim for your injuries.
For More Information
• More on Maryland Hit-and-Run Auto Accidents http://www.gfmlawllc.com/lawyer-attorney-1666645.html --steps you need to take immediately after the accident
• More on Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage http://www.gfmlawllc.com/lawyer-attorney-1666695.html--how it can help to protect you and your family
• Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund website https://www.maif.net/emaif/home.html

If you or someone you know took the birth control pill Yaz, Yasmin or Oscella and suffered a blood clot, pulmonary embolism, stroke, heart attack or other serious injury, then you should contact us to discuss your legal rights at 888-213-8140. Bayer Pharmaceutical recently announced that it was settling a group of about 500 cases involving blood clots for $110 Million Dollars. This settlement was announced just as the FDA ordered Bayer to strengthen the warning about blood clots on its birth control pills. Bayer's contraceptives, Yaz/Yasmin/Oscella generated over $1.5 Billion in revenue in 2010. There are currently thousands of lawsuits filed in Federal Court in Illinois alleging that Yasmin caused blood clotting, heart attacks and other serious injuries to young women. The Food and Drug Administration has also indicated that at least 50 deaths are tied to Yaz/Yasmin/Oscella from just 2004-2008.

Most private health insurance companies (as well as state and federal benefits, like medical assistance and Medicare) have an agreement with their insureds: We'll pay medical costs related to your Maryland auto accident, but if you get paid in a lawsuit or settlement, then you have to pay us back. This is called subrogation.

It makes sense, and here's why. Maryland has what's known as the collateral source rule. This is a rule about evidence. It says that if I receive the value of services or goods to compensate me for an accident, I can still recoup the value of the services or goods from the negligent driver.

The Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions state the collateral source rule as it is usually read at trial:

In arriving at the amount of damages to be awarded for past and future medical expenses and past loss of earnings, you may not reduce the amount of your award because you believe or infer that the plaintiff has received or will receive reimbursement for or payment of proven medical expenses or lost earnings from persons or entities other than the defendant, such as, for example, sick leave paid by the plaintiff's employer or medical expenses paid by plaintiff's health insurer.

Here are some examples:

• Example One: Maryland car accident. I go to the hospital, and incur $2,500 in medical bills. My health insurance company, pursuant to their agreement with the hospital, pays $2,000, and the hospital writes of the remainder pursuant to their agreement with my health insurance company. I file a lawsuit against the negligent driver, I am allowed to claim the full $2,500 in medical expenses. The negligent driver cannot tell the jury that I did not actually spend $2,500 in medical expenses.
• Example Two: Maryland car accident. I go to the hospital, and incur $2,500 in medical bills. Because I timely paid my premiums, my automobile insurance policy pays the hospital $2,500 through my Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance. That brings my medical expenses down to zero. At trial, I can still ask for the full value of those medical expenses, and the jury may award me $2,500 for my medical expenses, even though I did not make any out-of-pocket payments.
• Example Three: Maryland car accident. I need a leg surgery, valued at $15,000. My brother happens to be orthopedic doctor. He does the surgery for free. At trial, I can still ask for the full value of the medical expenses, and the jury may award me $15,000 for the surgery, even though it did not cost me a penny.

Not all states have the collateral source rule, but it is a good idea for the following reasons:

• Windfall: The negligent driver should not "win the lottery" and avoid paying for the results of his negligent simply because my medical treatment is somehow taken care of. As between the negligent driver and me, the negligent driver should bear the burden of paying for medical expenses caused by the accident.
• Insurance Premiums: If my medical care is paid for by PIP or by my health insurance, it is not really free to me. I pay a premium to carry that insurance, and the negligent driver should have to pay for the medical care.
• Attorneys' Fees: In the American style of lawsuits, each party usually pays his or her own attorneys' fees. This means that in most civil cases like auto accidents, if the injured person gets paid back 100% the value of his claim (medical bills that he had to pay, lost wages, etc...), he is not really "made whole." That is because he probably had to pay a lawyer to recover what was owed to him. He probably paid his lawyer between one-third and 40% of the settlement or verdict. Because of the collateral source, the victim is a little closer to being made whole--the victim gets paid for some amounts that he may not have actually made payments for.

Many automobile insurance companies take advantage of victims who have not hired an attorney--they won't tell victims about the collateral source rule (truthfully, some insurance adjusters don't even know about the rule), and will try to convince victims that they can only recover for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, like co-pays and maybe deductibles. Victims who settle for those amounts are not getting the full value of their claims.

Back to health insurance: because most health insurance companies require victims (who get money in a settlement or verdict) to pay them back for medical expenses, it is fair for the victims to be able to recover the value of those medical expenses from the negligent driver.

One good reason to hire an attorney for an auto accident case is that the attorney will usually be able to negotiate with your health insurance company. The goal is to twofold: (1) to make sure that the insurance company's lien doesn't include medical treatment that was unrelated to the accident; and (2) to reduce the insurance company's lien by at least one-third. The reduction in the lien also makes sense--the victim had to pay an attorney to get his money; it doesn't make sense for the health insurance company to get his money without the same "cost."

Contact Us
If you have questions about how much you must pay your health insurance company after a Maryland, Virginia or D.C. automobile accident, call our attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan and Mester at 1.888.213.8140, or contact us online for a free consultation.

For More Information

• More on PIP and other Maryland car insurance
• PIP in Bicycle Injury Accidents
• Medical Treatment after a Maryland Automobile Accident