Maryland Injury Law Center

The Baltimore Sun reports that car insurance companies in Maryland are resisting the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund’s (MAIF’s) car insurance rate-lowering proposal because MAIF’s plan to lower rates puts the private sector at risk. After a hearing in Baltimore, Maryland Insurance Commissioner Ralph S. Tyler delayed ruling on some insurance companies’ objections to MAIF lowering their rates.

Let me get this straight. Car insurance companies cannot compete with a non-subsidized state-run agency. Was Marx on to something? No, we all saw the Beijing Olympics; capitalism seems to work just fine.

Is this really where we are? Private car insurance companies need protection from competition by this awful company? I’m not sure what the private insurance companies’ arguments are on this issue. The only argument offered by the Baltimore Sun was provided by Hal S. Katz, president of Baltimore-based Interstate Auto Insurance (IAICO). Also specializing in writing Maryland car insurance policies for drivers that have a history of trouble, IAICO complained that MAIF does not enforce its requirement that provides car insurance only to drivers rejected by two private companies.

The Baltimore Sun reports that the presidents of the University of Maryland, Towson University, Washington College, Johns Hopkins, Goucher College and Washington College among other schools have signed off on a letter urging Congress to lower the drinking age to 18, saying we need to stop relearning the lessons of Prohibition.

Should We Lower the Drinking Age?

This is crazy to me. But we need the authors of “Freakonomics” to help us sort this out. Drunk driving deaths decreased when the age was increased from 18 to 21. But the 80s also saw a substantial increase in awareness at the same time we were raising the drinking age around the country.

Last week, I wrote a recent Missouri Supreme Court opinion that found that a driver could recover emotional damages in a lawsuit against the parent of a child killed in a truck accident. Today, I found Taylor v. Mucci, a Connecticut Supreme Court issued on Tuesday that reaches a different conclusion in a slightly different context that involves the interpretation of “bodily injury” in an insurance policy.

On Christmas Eve in 2004, the Plaintiff’s minor son, Andrew, was struck by a car driven by the Defendant. Andrew’s case settled but Plaintiff maintained a negligence claim for the emotional distress suffered having witnessed the accident.

At the time of the accident, the Defendant had a 100/300 insurance policy with Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the insurance policy did not cover claims for bystander emotional distress.

The California 2nd Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion addressing the question of just how much of a plaintiff’s personal life is fair game of cross-examination in Winfred D. v. Michelin North America.

(Random comment: Can we all use first names where there are the remotest of privacy issues in question like this court does? If you are killed and your family brings a wrongful death claim or even if you are a doctor accused of medical malpractice, should someone’s Google legacy really be their name in a legal case that might include personal details? Who opposes this?)

Plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain injury when his tire split while driving a cargo van. Plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that the accident left the Plaintiff, a college graduate, with the functional skills of a 4th grader. One of his doctors testified that Plaintiff was “incompetent” to give testimony in that “his memory is flawed,” and he says things that he believes to be true which may not be because of his brain injury. Awful, right?