2001 Legislative Wrap-Up (Continued from page 13)
pass the Senate. For each of the past sev- eral years, our legislative committee has kept Angelos advised of our efforts and sought his support. Each year he has re- fused. Two years ago, he advised that if we proposed a bill with no modification of joint and several liability, then he would support the measure. Although the bills proposed this past session and the session before did not modify joint and several liability, Angelos refused to join our ef- forts or assist in any fashion despite repeated overtures. We did not passively accept the notice
from Senator Sfikas. We tried to talk about the issue directly with Mr. Angelos, but he refused our telephone calls and refused to meet. Senator Sfikas tried the arrange a meeting, but Angelos ignored that request as well. At our request, Fred Barron, president of ATLA contacted Angelos, again to no avail. Angelos was advised through his lobbyist and by fax that if joint and several changes were of- fered to the bill, we would join him in working to kill the bill which would have been easy because the sponsors can always
kill a bill. Again, no response. As is always the case in Annapolis,
words spreads quicker than butter on a hot skillet. Once Senator Sfikas bolted, it became impossible to hold our support- ers since they wondered why they should take heat from the business community for their vote when the measure was dead. With regard to key role of Senator Sfikas’ defection, Senator Jenny Forehand was quoted in the Baltimore Sun as stating, “If he hadn’t done that, I’m sure the bill would have passed.” Senator Sfikas’ conduct was extraordi- narily disappointing. His decision means that Marylanders’ safety will continue to be compromised by the civil law rule that says it is okay to hurt or kill people so long as those hurt or killed have done the least little thing wrong. Senator Sfikas’ decision understandably has left many persons disgusted with legislative process. At least we can take solace that our courts do not run this way. The efforts of the legislative commit- tee and the lobbyists on behalf of the comparative negligence bill were posi- tively extraordinary. It is safe to say that at least three times more effort went into the comparative negligence bill than went
into the parent child immunity bill. It is indeed a tribute to our lobbyists and our legislative team that despite the bitter way in which comparative negligence died, our efforts on other bills did not abate and ultimately yielded the extraordinarily suc- cessful result of the parent child immunity bill becoming law.
Family Exclusion
Literally every policy of motor vehicle insurance delivered in the State of Mary- land contains a provision which specifically prohibits coverage for claims by family members against family mem- bers if they live in the same household. Our Court of Appeals has interpreted this family exclusion provision as being valid above the mandatory minimums of cov- erage ($20,000/$40,000). As a result, in our state, a person literally cannot pur- chase more than $20,000/$40,000 for claims by his or her family members. Your family members are safer driving with someone who is not a relative. This quirk of Maryland motor vehicle insurance cov- erage certainly does not fit consumers’ expectations, and we all have seen first- hand in our practices how it works injustices and hurts families.
14
Trial Reporter
Summer 2001
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56