In the event you have damages that are in excess of defendant's liability coverage, setting aside the issues involving UM coverage for the moment, you can set up the potential for a bad faith claim against the defendant insurance carrier that might in the long run net you payment for the full extent of your client's harms. The Maryland personal injury case on point is Kremen v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund 363 Md. 663, 770 A.2d 170
Md.,2001. In this case defendant insurer had the chance to settle the case for policy limits however, refused to settle. The court determined the action for bad faith lies in tort and not in contract. In this case it was determined there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury reasonably to have found that the defendant’s insurer did not fully investigate plaintiff's claimed head injuries. Because the jury was provided with evidence of the defendant insurers failure to investigate fully plaintiff's closed head injury claim and of plaintiff's willingness to settle unconditionally the underlying case for defendant's $20,000 policy limit, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence before the jury to support its finding that defendant insurer acted in bad faith (negligently) when it refused to settle the case. The measure of damage was the difference between the policy limits and the amount of the judgment entered against the insured.
As a matter of practice when we conduct our initial client intake one of the first points of inquiry is UM/UIM coverage. Once our clients near completion of treatment we ball park value the case. When we feel we have an excess case we investigate defendant’s assets and upon confirmation of all damages forward a policy limits demand, if appropriate.
Md.,2001. In this case defendant insurer had the chance to settle the case for policy limits however, refused to settle. The court determined the action for bad faith lies in tort and not in contract. In this case it was determined there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury reasonably to have found that the defendant’s insurer did not fully investigate plaintiff's claimed head injuries. Because the jury was provided with evidence of the defendant insurers failure to investigate fully plaintiff's closed head injury claim and of plaintiff's willingness to settle unconditionally the underlying case for defendant's $20,000 policy limit, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence before the jury to support its finding that defendant insurer acted in bad faith (negligently) when it refused to settle the case. The measure of damage was the difference between the policy limits and the amount of the judgment entered against the insured.
As a matter of practice when we conduct our initial client intake one of the first points of inquiry is UM/UIM coverage. Once our clients near completion of treatment we ball park value the case. When we feel we have an excess case we investigate defendant’s assets and upon confirmation of all damages forward a policy limits demand, if appropriate.
Post Title
→Bad Faith Failure to Settle in Maryland Personal Injury Cases
Post URL
→http://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2008/09/bad-faith-failure-to-settle-in-maryland.html
Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
